)N  K • Aw^  2) 


n 


A R *f 

CT 

15 

no. 


HAMPSHIRE 

INTER-LIBRARY 


NUMISMATIC  N 
AND 


MONOGRAPHI^^^ 

No.  6 ' 


'•rv 


FIVE  ROMAN  GOLD  MEDALLIONS 


OR 


MULTIPLE  SOLIDI  OF  THE  LATE  EMPIRE 


By  AGNES  BALDWIN 


THE  AMERICAN  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY 
BROADWAY  AT  166th  STREET 
NEW  YORK 
1921 


PUBLICATIONS 


The  American  Journal  of  Numismatics* 
1866-date. 

Monthly,  May,  i866-April,  1870. 

Quarterly^  July*  1870-October,  1912. 

Annual,  1913-date, 

With  many  plates,  illustrations,  maps  and  tables. 
Less  than  a dozen  complete  sets  of  the  Jour- 
nal remain  on  hand.  Prices  on  application. 
Those  wishing  to  fill  broken  sets  can  secure 
most  of  the  needed  volumes  separately.  An 
index  to  the  first  50  volumes  has  been  issued 
as  part  of  Volume  51.  It  may  also  be  pur- 
chased as  a reprint  for  ^3.00. 


The  American  Numismatic  Society.  Catalogue 
of  the  International  Exhibition  of  Contempo- 
rary Medals.  March,  1910.  New  and  revised 
edition.  New  York.  1911.  xxxvi,  412 
pages,  512  illustrations.  ^10.00. 

The  American  Numismatic  Society.  Exhibition 
of  United  States  and  Colonial  Coins.  1914. 
vii,  134  pages,  40  plates,  ^i.oo. 


The  Porta  Nigra,  Treves 


NUMISMATIC 

NOTES  & MONOGRAPHS 


Numismatic  Notes  and  Monographs  is 
devoted  to  essays  and  treatises  on  subjects 
relating  to  coins,  paper  money,  medals  and 
decorations,  and  is  uniform  with  Hispanic 
Notes  and  Monographs  published  by  the 
Hispanic  Society  of  America,  and  with  In- 
dian Notes  and  Monographs  issued  by  the 
Museum  of  the  American  Indian-Heye 
Foundation. 


FIVE  ROMAN  GOLD  MEDALLIONS 


OR 

MULTIPLE  SOLIDI  OF  THE  LATE  EMPIRE 


BY 

AGNES  BALDWIN  \ . jOd 


THE  AMERICAN  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY 
BROADWAY  AT  156th  STREET 
NEW  YORK 
1921 


COPYRIGHT  1921  BY 

THE  AMERICAN  NUMISMATIC  SOCIETY 


Press  of  T.  R.  Marvin  & Son,  Boston 


IHEGEnV  CENTER 
LIBRARY 


ROMA.N  MEDALLIONS 

I 

FIVE  ROMAN  GOLD  MEDALLIONS 

OR 

MULTIPLE  SOLIDI  OF  THE 
LATE  EMPIRE 

by  Agnes  Baldwin 

Roman  gold  medallions  have  come  down 
to  us  from  antiquity  in  much  smaller 
number  than  the  silver  and  bronze  medal- 
lions. Nevertheless,  it  is  quite  probable 
that  a considerable  number  were  coined, 
but  on  account  of  the  intrinsic  value  of 
the  metal  relatively  few  are  now  extant. 
It  may  be  taken  as  a general  principle  that 
all  Roman  medallions  are  rare  and,  as 
Gnecchi  sa3^s,  they  form  the  most  elite 
and  aristocratic  portion  of  a collector’s 
cabinet.  The  following  five  pieces  which 
are  here  presented  are  no  exception  to  the 
rule  above  stated.  The  first  four  belong 
to  the  period  of  Constantine  the  Great, 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

2 

ROMAN  GOLD 

306-337  A.D. ; while  the  fifth  is  an  issue 
of  Valentinian  I,  364-375  a.d. 

The  first  medallion  of  the  group,  with  a 
diademed  head  of  Constantine  the  Great, 
is  a unique  piece  which  was  not  known  to 
Cohen  and  is  not  illustrated  in  Gnecchi’s 
famous  work  on  the  Roman  medallions. 
It  belongs  to  the  Pierpont  Morgan  Collec- 
tion, and  was  formerly  in  the  collection 
of  Consul  Weber  of  Hamburg,  into  whose 
collection  it  came  from  that  of  Count 
Ponton  d’Amecourt.  The  second  medal- 
lion, bearing  the  portrait  of  Constantine  II, 
son  of  Constantine  the  Great,  is  also  in 
the  Pierpont  Morgan  Collection,  and  it 
likewise  was  formerly  in  the  Weber  and 
Ponton  d’Amecourt  Collections.  It  is 
not  unique,  for  the  Brussels  Collection 
possesses  a second  example  from  different 
obverse  and  reverse  dies.  The  third  piece, 
with  a laureate  head  of  Constantine  the 
Great,  belongs  to  the  Collection  of  Dr.  de 
Yoanna  of  New  York  City.  It  is  known 
to  us  in  some  six  or  seven  examples  and  is 
the  commonest  of  the  group  here  presented. 
The  fourth  piece,  with  a radiate  head,  also 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

3 

of  Constantine  the  Great,  is  now  in  the 
possession  of  Sir  Arthur  Evans  who 
obtained  it  from  the  Consul  Weber  Collec- 
tion. It  is  known  to  us  in  only  three 
examples  — one  in  the  Evans  Collection, 
one  in  Paris,  and  one  in  Berlin.  The 
fifth  medallion  discussed  here  is  a unique 
piece  which  is  in  the  Brussels  Museum, 
and  was  formerly  in  the  collection  of  Count 
du  Chastel.  A letter  from  the  Count  du 
Chastel,  dated  June  2,  1896,  referring  to 
the  famous  Montagu  Collection  sold  in 
1896  gives  us  the  very  interesting  informa- 
tion that  this  gold  medallion  had  formerly 
belonged  to  the  grandfather  of  the  present 
Count  du  Chastel.  The  writer  states 
that  the  medallion  was  stolen  from  his 
grandfather  in  his  chateau  at  the  time  of 
the  occupation  of  Belgium  by  foreign 
troops  in  1794.  This  unique  medallion 
had  disappeared  from  view,  which  was  a 
great  loss  especially  as  it  had  never  been 
published.  Later  on,  it  appeared  in  the 
English  catalogue  of  the  Montagu  Collec- 
tion, lot  No.  914,  and  was  acquired  by  the 
present  Count  du  Chastel,  with  whose 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

4 

ROMAN  GOLD 

collection  it  passed  into  the  National 
Collection  of  Brussels. 

There  is  eonsiderable  interest  from  the 
historical  viewpoint  attaching  to  the  four 
medallions  of  the  period  of  Constantine 
the  Great.  The  medallion  of  Valentinian 
offers  perhaps  less  historical  interest,  but 
the  fact  that  it  is  a unique  example  entitles 
it  to  our  consideration.  Furthermore, 
while  Gnecchi  figures  this  medallion  on 
one  of  his  plates,  the  reproduetion  is 
extremely  poor  and  does  no  justice  to  the 
original. 

Roman  medallions  have  not  formed  the 
subject  of  such  frequent  discussion  as  they 
deserve.  In  the  bibliography  appended 
to  this  article,  the  chief  sourees  in  which 
the  Roman  medallions  are  discussed  and 
illustrated  have  been  listed.  Those  articles 
or  books  which  deal  with  the  subject  most 
comprehensively  are  distinguished  by 
an  asterisk.  Two  works  on  this  list  are 
designated  with  a double  asterisk.  These 
are,  namely,  the  great  work  in  three  vol- 
umes by  Franceseo  Gnecchi,  I Medaglioni 
Romani,  published  in  1912,  and  the  article 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

5 

by  Friedrich  Kenner,  Der  Romische  Me- 
daillon,  Num.  Zeit.y  1887,  pp.  1-173. 

These  works  are  the  most  important  for 
complete  presentation  of  the  subject, 
Gnecchi’s  book  giving  us  illustrations  and 
a catalogue  of  nearly  all  of  the  known 
types,  and  Kenner’s  article  furnishing  the 
most  complete  analysis  of  the  nature  of 
the  medallion.  Briefer  discussions  on  the 
nature  of  the  medallion  are  found  in  the 
various  articles  by  Gnecchi  in  the  Riv. 
Ital.  An  article  dealing  especially  with 
the  medallions  of  Constantine  the  Great 
and  his  family,  but  containing  also  some 
new  material  relative  to  the  ptirpose  of  the 
medallion,  is  the  one  by  0.  Seeck  in  the 
Zeit.  f.  Num.,  1898,  pp.  17-65.  For  gen- 
eral orientation,  one  should  consult  M. 
Babelon’s  Traite  des  Monnaies  Grecques  et 
Romaines,  Vol.  I^,  pp.  652-670. 

Certain  special  articles,  as  is  so  often 
the  case,  throw  a great  deal  of  light  on 
some  phases  of  the  problem  presented  by 
the  medallions,  and  among  these  one 
might  mention  the  articles  of  Sir  John 
Evans  and  Sir  Arthur  Evans  in  the  Nu- 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

6 

ROMAN  GOLD 

mismatic  Chronicle.  As  one  would  natu- 
rally turn  to  the  subject  of  Greek  medal- 
lions in  any  discussion  of  the  nature  and 
origin  of  the  Roman  medallion,  some 
additional  references  on  this  subject  are 
given  at  the  end  of  the  bibliography. 

MEDALLIONS  OF  CONSTANTINE  THE 
GREAT  AND  CONSTANTINE  JUNIOR 

Constantine  the  Great,  306-337  a.d. 

1 Ohv.  CONSTANTINVS  AVG,  Coustantinus 
Augiustus),  “ Constantine  Augustus . ’ ’ 
Diademed  head  of  Constantine  the 
Great,  to  the  right,  with  chin  raised 
and  eyes  uplifted ; border  of  dots. 

Rev.  VIRTVS  D.  N.  CONSTANTINI  AVG, 
Virtus  d{omini)  n{ostri),  Constantini 
Augiusti),  “The  valor  of  our  Lord, 
Constantine  Augustus.”  ' Constantine 
walking  to  the  right  holding  a spear  in 
his  right  hand,  carrying  a trophy  over 
his  left  shoulder,  and  thrusting  his  left 
foot  against  a captive  seated  in  an 
attitude  of  distress,  wearing  a Phrygian 
cap  and  Oriental  dress.  In  exergue, 
SIS,  Sis{ciae),  ^‘Siscia.” 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

7 

Gold  medallion.  4§  solidi.  37  mm.  20.07 
gr.  Found  at  Semlin  in  Hungary  (for- 
merly in  Weber  and  d’Amecourt  Collec- 
tions). Pierpont  Morgan  Collection. 

Plate  I. 

Cat.  Weber,  No.  2592,  PL  xlv;  Cat.  d’Ame- 
court, 1889,  No.  668,  PI.  xxvi;  Cohen,  Me- 
dailles  Imperiales,  Vol.  VII,  No.  688;  Gnecchi, 
Medaglioni  Romani,  No.  64,  p.  21. 

Constantine  II,  Junior,  317-337  a.d. 

(Born  316,  Died  340) 

2 Ohv.  CONSTANTINVS  IVN.  NOB.  CAES., 
Constantinus  Juniior)  noh{ilis)  Caes{ar) 
“Constantine,  Junior,  noble  Caesar.” 
Laureate  bust  of  Constantine  Junior  to 
the  left  wearing  military  cloak  and 
cuirass;  right  hand  holding  globe  sur- 
mounted by  a figure  of  Nike,  who  holds 
in  her  right  hand  a wreath  before  the 
face  of  the  Caesar,  and  bears  a palm 
over  her  left  shoulder ; left  hand  placed 
upon  the  handle  of  a sword  ending  in  an 
eagle’s  head ; border  of  dots. 

Rev.  VOTIS  DECENN.  D.  N.  CONSTANTINI 
CAES.  Votis  decenn{alihus)  d{omini) 
n{ostri)  Constantini  Caes{aris)  {solutis), 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

8 

ROMAN  GOLD 

“The  Decennial  vows  of  our  Lord,  Con- 
stantine Caesar  (having  been  paid).” 
Two  winged  genii  holding  a festoon  be- 
tween them.  In  the  exergue,  s.m.ts. 
S{acra)  m{oneta)  T{he)s{salonicae),  “Sa- 
cred mint  of  Thessalonica.” 

Gold  medallion.  3 solidi,  or  ternio. 
32  mm.  13.48  gr.  (formerly  Weber  and 
d’ Amecourt  Collections) . Pierpont  Mor- 
gan Collection.  Plate  II. 

Cat.  Weber,  No.  2627,  PI.  xlvii;  Cat.  d’ Ame- 
court, No.  710,  PI.  xxviii;  Cohen,  Midailles 
Imperiales,  Vol.  VII,  No.  277;  Gnecchi,  Meda- 
glioni  Romani,  PI.  9,  No.  8 and  p.  26,  No.  21 ; 
J.  Maurice,  Numismatique  Constantinienne,  Vol. 
II,  p.  466,  No.  XV. 

. These  two  medallions  of  Constantine 
the  Great  and  his  son,  Constantine  Junior, 
may  best  be  discussed  together  since  the 
occasion  on  which  the  second  piece  was 
issued  will  probably  throw  light  upon  the 
occasion  for  the  issue  of  the  larger  medal- 
lion. 

We  may  begin,  therefore,  with  a descrip- 
tion of  the  medallion  of  Constantine 
Junior.  It  is  a triple  solidus  or  ternio  of 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

9 

the  mint  of  Thessalonica  (Saloniki)  in 
Thrace,  and  is  a piece  which  can  be 
definitely  dated.  The  reverse  inscription 
reads  : Votis  decenn{alibus)  d{omini)n{ostri) 
Constantini  Caes{aris)  (sohitis),  “The 
Decennial  vows  of  our  Lord,  Constantine 
Caesar  (having  been  paid),”  and  the 
reverse  type  consists  of  two  small  genii 
bearing  a festoon.  These  small  winged 
figures  miay  represent  the  two  periods  of 
five  years  each,  which  make  up  the  ten- 
year  period  at  the  end  of  which  the  Vota 
Decennalia  were  celebrated.  A similar 
reverse  with  the  inscription,  Gaudium 
Augusti  nostri,  “The  happiness  of  our 
Augustus,”  occurs  on  a triple  solidus  or 
ternio  (Cohen,  159)  struck  by  Constantine 
the  Great  at  the  mint  of  Constantinople, 
a medallion  which  is  dated  by  Maurice 
in  the  same  period  as  the  medallion  under 
discussion  {Num.  Cons  tan.,  Vol.  II,  p. 
495,  No.  vii).  The  decennial  festival  at 
which  vows  for  the  success  of  the  Emperor 
in  the  future  were  offered,  and  at  which 
vows  undertaken  in  the  past  were  cele- 
brated, was  made  the  occasion  of  a special 

Vota  medal- 
lion, -ternio, 
of  Constan- 
tine II 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

lO 

ROMAN  GOLD 

commemorative  issue  in  the  coinage. 
These  thanksgiving  or  festival  anniver- 
saries in  the  earlier  period  ^ — i.e.  up  to 
the  reign  of  Commodus  — were  marked 
by  the  type,  a veiled  figure  of  the  Emperor 
at  an  altar,  and  accompanied  by  the 
inscription,  Vota  suscepta  decennalia,  or 
quinquennalia,  etc.  Later,  the  usual  types 
were  an  inscription  within  a wreath,  or  an 
inscription  on  a shield  placed  on  a cippus 
or  held  by  a Victory,  or  supported  by  two 
Victories. 

During  the  earlier  Empire,  mention  of 
the  Vota  celebrations  supplies  a valuable 
indication  of  the  date  of  issue,  but  during 
the  later  Empire  it  became  customary  to 
anticipate  the  normal  arrival  of  such 
festivals.  The  periods  were  sometimes 
celebrated  a year  in  advance  and  some- 
times after  a definite  cycle  had  elapsed 
and  been  commemorated  on  the  coinage, 
the  ensuing  period  was  at  once  placed 
upon  the  coinage.  Thus,  when  Con- 
stantine had  completed  his  Vicennial 
anniversary,  he  struck  coins  with  the 
inscription  vox  xxx.^  But  each  actual 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

II 

celebration  of  the  anniversary  of  the  reign 
was  commemorated  by  games,  by  a special 
issue  of  coins,  and  by  the  issue  of  medallions 
such  as  the  one  here  represented,  probably 
for  distribution. 

Flavius  Claudius  Junius  Constantinus, 
as  Constantine  II  or  Junior  was  officially 
called,  was  born  at  Arles  in  the  year  316 
and  was  elevated  to  the  rank  of  Caesar  in 
317.  He  would,  therefore,  have  been  a 
youth  of  barely  ten  years  of  age  when  the 
present  medallion  was  struck.  The  fea- 
tures of  Constantine  Junior  are  here 
depicted  as  youthful  in  accordance  with 
his  age.  Constantine  II  shared  the  rank 
of  Caesar  with  Crispus,  his  half-brother, 
who  was  sixteen  years  his  senior,  and  with 
Licinius  the  younger,  son  of  Licinius  who 
was  at  first  Constantine  the  Great’s  co- 
ruler in  the  Empire.  After  the  death  of 
Constantine  the  Great  in  337,  Constan- 
tine II  was  proclaimed  Augustus,  but 
perished  three  years  later  in  340  at  the 
age  of  24  in  the  contest  with  his  younger 
brother  Constans  I over  his  share  in  their 
father’s  Empire.  Hence,  the  dates  here 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

12 

ROMAN  GOLD 

Vota  medal- 
lion, binio, 
of  Constan- 
tine II 

given,  317-337,  cover  the  period  during 
which  Constantine  was  Caesar  or  prince 
in  the  royal  household. 

Another  gold  piece  commemorating  the 
Decennial  anniversary  of  Constantine  Junior 
as  Caesar,  is  the  double  solidus  or  binio 

(Fig.  i)  with  the  diademed  head  of  Con- 
stantine Junior  raised  in  the  same  attitude 
as  that  seen  on  our  medallion  of  Con- 
stantine the  Great.  The  inscription 
around  the  head  reads : constantinvs  | 
NOB.  c.  — Constantinus  noh{ilis)  C{o‘''sar). 
The  reverse  bears  simply  the  inscrip- 
tion in  four  lines  as  follows : voxis.  x. 
CAES.N.  s.M.TS.  — Votis  decennalibus  Caes- 
{aris)  n(ostri)  {solutis),  s{acra)  m(oneta) 
T{he)s{salonicae) , “The  Decennial  vows 
of  our  Caesar  (having  been  paid),  Sacred 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

13 

mint  of  Thessalonica.”  This  binio  is, 
also,  of  the  mint  of  Thessalonica  and  is  of 
the  highest  interest  since  it  is  a coin  which 
can  be  approximately  dated  showing  the 
interesting  type  of  the  uplifted  head  seen 
on  the  larger  medallion,  PL  I,  which  is 
later  in  date.  Its  weight,  8.75  grams, 
shows  that  it  is  the  double  of  a solidus  of 
about  4.45  grams.  It  is  published  by 
J.  Maurice  {Num  Constan.,  Vol.  II, 
PI.  xiv,  13)  and  is  now  in  Berlin.  The 
upward  pose  of  the  head  with  the  eyes 
uplifted  is  a type  created  by  Constantine 
the  Great  and  dates  back  to  the  Council  of 
Nicaea,  which  was  in  session  from  June  19 
to  August  25,  325.  Eusebius  in  his  Life 
of  Constantine  the  Great  {Vita  Const., 
Book  III,  Ch.  6)  tells  us  that  “the  most 
distinguished  of  God’s  Ministers  from  all 
the  churches  which  abounded  in  Europe, 
Lybia  {i.e.  Africa),  and  Asia  were  here 
assembled.”  Eusebius,  himself,  was  prob- 
ably the  chief  ranking  bishop  of  the 
Council  which  was  attended  in  person  by 
the  Emperor.  Constantine’s  entry  into 
the  assembly  of  bishops  is  vividl}^  de- 

Pose  of  head, 
type  created 
at  Nicaea 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

14 

ROMAN  GOLD 

scribed  by  Eusebius,':;  his  jadinirer  and 
panegyrist.  The  majestic*  yet  - modest 
bearing  and  gorgeous  jewels  and  purple 
cloak,  form  an  interesting  pen  picture  to 
supplement  the  accounts  of  his  personal 
appearance  which  have  come  down  to’  us 
from  various  authorities. 

In  Book  IV,  Ch.  15,  of  the  Life,  we  read 
the  following  explanations  of  the  coin 
types  with  uplifted  head,  “How  deeply 
his  soul  was  impressed  by  the  power  of 
Divine  Faith  may  be  understood  from  the 
circumstance  that  he  directed  that  his 
portrait  should  be  so  represented  on  the 
gold  coins  as  to  appear  to  be  looking 
upwards  in  an  attitude  of  prayer  intent 
upon  God.” 

In  nummis  aureis  ita  imaginem  suam 
exprimi  curavit  ut  videretur  sursum 
intueri  precantis  more  in  deum  intentus, 
or  in  the  original  Greek  : 

€V  TOl?  ^pvcrot?  VOjJLLd/JUKTL  Tyv  aVTOV 
avTo<;  eiKOva  w8e  ypd(f>e(TOaL  Siervirov  w? 
dvwySAeVeiv  Sokelv  dvarera/xevo?  Trpd?  Oeov, 

TpOTTOV  eV)(Opi€VOV. 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

15 

Eusebius  adds  that  this  money  became 
current  throughout  the  Roman  world, 
and  that  Constantine’s  full  length  portrait 
was'  placed  over  the  entrance  gates  of 
palaces  in  some  cities,  the  eyes  uplifted 
to  Heaven,  and  the  hands  outspread  as  if 
in  prayer. 

The  old  view  was  that  Constantine  the 
Great  was  imitating  Alexander  the  Great 
in  this  pose  of  the  h^jad.  This  attitude  of 
Alexander  the  Great  is  not  found  upon 
coins  issued  by  Alexander  since,  of  course, 
we  have  no  real  portrait  of  the  Macedonian 
hero  on  his  own  coins,  although  his  suc- 
cessor, Lysimachus,  struck  coins  with 
Alexander’s  portrait  under  the  guise  of 
an  idealized  head  of  Zeus  Ammon.  But 
the  biographers  of  Alexander  the  Great 
and  certain  marble  busts  which  have  come 
dov/n  to  us  indicate  that  Alexander  either 
affected  an  individual  pose  of  the  head,  or 
carried  his  head  rather  differently  from  the 
ordinary  mortal  because  of  some  physical 
pjeculiarity.  Furthermore,  Plutarch  who 
had  seen  portraits  of  Alexander  by  Lysip- 
pus, the  great  sculptor  of  the  period,  states 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 


i6 

ROMAN  GOLD 

in  his  Life  of  Alexander,  Ch.  iv,  that  his 
head  was  inclined  somewhat  to  the  left 
side  and  looked  upwards.  The  famous 
Tarsus  medallion  with  the  bare  head  of 
Alexander  and  later  coins  of  Macedonia 
during  the  Roman  period  show  the  head 
of  Alexander  with  the  chin  raised  and  the 
eyes  somewhat  uplifted,  but  there  can  be 
no  question,  in  view  of  the  explicit  state- 
ment of  Eusebius,  that  the  correct  ex- 
planation of  this  characteristic  on  certain 
Constantinian  medallions  is  that  this 
posture  indicates  the  attitude  of  prayer. 
An  Alexander  cult  was  indeed  inaugurated 
after  the  death  of  the  hero,  and  Alexander’s 
portrait  was  worn  as  an  amulet  until  late 
in  the  Fourth  Century  a.d.  Neverthe- 
less, Eusebius’  explanation  is  far  more 
plausible  when  we  consider  that  the  same 
attitude  of  the  head  is  found  on  com- 
memorative coins  of  the  youthful  Crispus 
and  of  the  young  Constantine,  who  would 
be  far  more  fittingly  represented  in  a 
religious  attitude,  lifting  their  counte- 
nances in  gratitude  to  God  for  the  successful 
conclusion  of  the  ten-year  period  as 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

17 

Caesars.  To  compare  either  the  young 
Caesars  or  Constantine  the  Great  with 
Alexander  is  quite  inappropriate,  and  if 
we  could  imagine  that  Constantine  himself 
had  a flair  for  Alexander,  it  is  absurd  to 
suppose  that  the  imitation  of  this  peculiar 
pose  of  the  head  would  have  been  counte- 
nanced by  Constantine  also  on  the  coins 

of  the  Caesars.  Another  objection  is 
that  the  uplifted  pose  begins  after  the 
Council  of  Nicaea  in  325  (see  the  binio, 
Fig.  I,  and  the  solidus  of  the  Thessalonica 
mint  here  shown.  Fig.  2),  and  is  found 
on  more  conspicuous  medallions  of  ten 
years  later  (see  the  large  medallion  on 
PI.  I,  and  the  solidus  of  the  mint  of 
Nicomedia  here  shown,  Fig.  3),  a long 
time  after  the  conversion  of  Constantine 
to  Christianity,  when  the  imitation  of  a 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

ROMAN  G 0 L D 

pagan  hero  would  hardly  have  been  very 
fitting. 

We  learn  from  the  life  of  Constantine 
the  Great,  that  his  Vicennial  anniversary 
was  celebrated  first  at  Nicomedia,  on 
March  i,  325  (Eusebius,  Vita  Constantini, 
Book  I,  i)  and  then,  according  to  the 
usual  custom,  was  renewed  in  July  in  the 

year  326  at  Rome,  Constantine  being 
present  at  both  celebrations.  The  year 
325,  however,  was  one  year  in  advance 
of  the  actual  accomplishment  of  his 
Vicennalia,  since  the  date  from  which  these 
periodical  celebrations  were  reckoned  was 
the  elevation  to  the  rank  of  Caesar. 
Thus,  for  Constantine  the  Great,  the  Vota 
would  be  reckoned  from  the  year  306,  for 
Crispus  and  Constantine  II,  from  the  year 
317.  The  Decennial  Vota  of  Constantine 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

19 

Junior  (and  Crispus)  would,  therefore, 
fall  normally  in  the  year  327,  but  .fetes 
took ' place  in  anticipation  of  the  celebra- 
tion, and  Constantine  ordered  the  Decent 
nalia  of  the  Caesars  celebrated  throughout 
the  Empire  one  year  in  advance  of  their 
accomplishment.  Thus,  the  renewed  cele- 
bration of  his  own  Vicennalia  in  326  fell 
in  the  same  year  as  the  anticipated  Decen- 
nalia  of  the  Caesars.  In  this  year,  326, 
therefore,  after  the  meeting  of  the  Nicaean 
Council  in  325,  the  type  of  the  uplifted 
head  in  the  attitude  of  prayer  appears 
on  the  medallions  of  Constantine  II,  as 
well  as  on  those  of  Constantine  the  Great 
(see  below.  Fig.  6). 

The  same'- type  of  head  occurs  on  the 
regular  currency  of  Crispus  (always  head 
to  the  right  and  wearing  a diadem),  no 
inscription  on  the  obverse,  and  the  figure 
of  Victory  bearing  a wreath  in  the  right 
hand  and  palm  branch  in  the  left  (Cohen, 
59,  solidus).  The  inscription  on  the 
reverse  reads  Crispus  Caesar.  This,  coin, 
on  account  of  the  medallic-like  character 
of  its  obverse,  and  the  inscription  being 

Nicaean  type 
on  coins  of 
Crispus 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

20 

ROMAN  GOLD 

Date  of 
Crispus’ 
death 

transferred  from  its  usual  position  on  the 
obverse  to  the  reverse,  would  appear  to 
have  been  issued  to  commemorate  some 
particular  event,  and  the  similarity  of  its 
obverse  type  to  the  obverse  type  of  Con- 
stantine Junior’s  Decennial  medallion 
(Fig.  i)  suggests  that  the  occasion  for  its 
issue  was  likewise  the  Decennial  anniver- 
sary of  Crispus,  namely,  the  year  326  in 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Imperial 
anniversaries  of  the  young  Caesars  were 
celebrated  one  year  in  advance. 

Crispus  was  executed  some  time  in  326, 
after  having  been  imprisoned  in  the 
fortress  of  Pola  in  Istria,  as  the  result  of 
false  accusations  brought  against  him  by 
his  stepmother,  Fausta.  His  tragic  his- 
tory, which  is  well  known,  recalls  the 
story  of  the  Euripidean  tragedy,  Hippoly- 
tus,  preserved  for  us,  also,  in  Racine’s 
Phedre. 

There  has  been  considerable  uncertainty 
in  regard  to  the  precise  month  when  Con- 
stantine ordered  the  death  of  Crispus. 
The  editors  of  the  writings  of  Eusebius, 
the  Church  History,  Life  of  Constantine 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

21 

the  Great,  and  Oration  in  praise  of  Con- 
stantine {Library  of  Nicene  and  Post- 
Nicene  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church, 
P.  Scheff  and  H.  Wace,  Vol.  I,  Prolegomena, 
p.  419)  believe  that  Crispus  was  still  alive 
on  March  i,  326,  when  the  Decennalla 
were  celebrated.  They  refer  to  Eckhel, 
Vol.  8,  pp.  101-102,  where  a coin  of  Crispus 
(Cohen,  3)  with  the  reverse  inscription 
Beata  Tranquillitas,  and  with  Votis  xx 
written  on  an  altar  is  discussed.  Now 
Eckhel  explains  that  the  Vota  xx,  if 
referring  to  the  Vicennial  anniversary  of 
Crispus,  could  of  course  only  be  placed  on 
the  coins  after  his  Vota  x.  Decennial 
anniversary  in  326  had  been  accomplished, 
but  that  the  mention  of  his  second  Consul- 
ship which  occurs  in  the  obverse  inscription 
reading  Crispus  N.  C.  Cos.  II,  places  the 
coin  definitely  in  the  year  321  which  is, 
also,  the  dating  given  by  Maurice  {Num. 
Constan.  II,  p.  113).  The  Vota  xx  of  this 
piece  must  hence  refer  to  the  Vicennalia 
of  the  Augusti,  Constantine  the  Great  and 
Licinius,  as  suscepta,  ‘undertaken,’  after 
the  Vota  x had  been  soluta,  ‘paid,’  in  the 

i 

1 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

' 22 

ROMAN  GOLD 

year  316.  The  Votis  xx  of  this  reverse 
dceupies  a subordinate  place  in  the  type 
and  merely  refers  to  the  decade  generally, 
the  obverse  inscription  obviating’  any 
ambiguity  as  to  the  date.  This  coin  then 
does  not  establish  the  survival  of  Crispus 
after  the  anniversaries  of  March,  326,  the 
Decennalia  of  Crispus  and  Constantine 
Junior. 

Maurice,  however,  quotes  Zosimus, 
Historiae  II,  29,  to  confirm  the  fact  that 
Constantine  ordered  the  death  of  Crispus 
during  his  stay  in  Rome.  As  he  arrived 
there  on  July  21  and  did  not  leave  until 
September,  Maurice  concludes  that  the 
death  of  Crispus  took  place  in  July  or 
August,  326.  This  view  is  opposed  to 
that  of  0.  Seeck  who  points  out  that  the  ab- 
sence of  any  Vota  x medallions  of  Crispus 
corresponding  to  the  five  medallions^  of 
Constantine  II  tends  to  prove  that  Crispus 
was  executed  before  March  i.  But  these 
Vota  X medallions  of  the  Caesars  were 
probably  not  struck  until  July,,  ,326,  dur- 
ing the  visit . of , Constantine-;, to  Rome 
and  the  celebration  :of  'his  own  Vicen- 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

23 

nalia,  rather  than  on  March  i of  this 
year  (Maurice,  Num.  Constan.  I,  p.  468). 
It  would  seem  more  probable,  in  any  event, 
to  suppose  that  the  gold  pieces  of  the  type 
described  (Cohen,  59)  were  subsequent 
to  the  issue  of  Constantine  the  Great  With 
the  same  type  of  head  (see  below  Fig.  6). 
These  latter  coins,  as  we  shall  see,  are 
probably  to  be  regarded  as  struck  for  the 

commemoration  of  the  celebration  of  326.^ 
The  type  was  perpetuated  on  the  coins  of 
the  succeeding  Caesars,  Dalmatius,  in 
silver  (Cohen,  3);  Constantins  II  , in  gold 
(Cohen,  75),  and  Constans  I,  in  silver 
(Cohen,  2,  mint  of  Alexandria,  and  Fig.  4, 
mint  of  Cyzicus).  Maurice  (Vol.  II, 
p.  408,  Note  i)  states  that  this  type  of 
coin  with  the  tilted  head  occurs  on  the 
coins  of  all  the  emperors  after  Constantine 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

'24 

ROMAN  GOLD 

Tricennial 
medallion  of 
Constantine 

the  Great  at  all  important  imperial  anni- 
versaries down  to  the  time  of  Julian  the 
Apostate.  He  says  that  this  attitude  is 
found  on  coins  of  Julian  as  Caesar  but 
that  when  he  was  made  Augustus  and 
declared  himself  the  adversary  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  type  disappears.  If  this  is 
true,  it  would  seem  to  confirm  what  has 
preceded  in  establishing  the  Christian 
meaning  of  the  type. 

The  large  medallion  of  Constantine  the 
Great  (PI.  I)  can  be  very  definitely  dated 
from  another  gold  issue  having  a similar 
reverse  type  from  the  mint  of  Siscia 
(Cohen,  237).  The  inscription  of  the 
smaller  piece  which  is  equal  to  solidi, 

reads  Gloria  Constantini  Aug.,  and  Con- 
stantine is  dragging  by  the  hair  another 
barbarian  captive  with  his  right  hand, 
instead  of  carrying  the  spear,  as  on  the 
larger  medallion.  In  other  respects,  how- 
ever, the  reverse  types  are  similar,  the 
mint  is  identical,  and,  what  is  most  im- 
portant, the  obverse  type  is  of  the  same 
medallic  character,  that  is,  uplifted  and 
diademed  head  of  the  Emperor  to  the 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

1 

MEDALLIONS 

25 

right,  and  lacks  the  inscription.  This 
piece  is  classified  by  Maurice  {Num.  Const. 
IL,  p.  366,  PI.  X,  24)  in  the  13th  issue  of 
the  coinage  of  this  mint,  struck  between 
September  1.8,  335,  and  May  22,  337,  the 
date  of  the  death  of  Constantine  the 
Great.  Now  the  Tricennial  anniversary 
of  Constantine  the  Great  was  celebrated 
twice,  as  usual,  on  July  25  in  the  years  335 
and  336.  The  second  celebration  would 
also  have  been  the  20th  anniversary  of 
Constantine  Junior,  that  is  to  say,  the 
anticipatory  celebration  of  336.  It  was, 
therefore,  an  extraordinary  occasion,  and, 
as  such,  called  for  the  issue  of  very  special 
coins  to  commemorate  the  great  event. 
The  large  medallion  and  also  the  small 
one  from  the  mint  of  Siscia  are  probably 
to  be  assigned  to  336,  the  year  of  the 
second  celebration,  as  this  appears  to  be 
the  more  important  event,  since  Eusebius 
refers  to  it  in  his  Vita  Constantini  iv,  49. 

The  obverse  type  and  reverse  legend 
of  our  medallion  refer  only  to  Constantine 
the  Elder.  Gold  medallions  of  smaller 
denomination  are  known  referring  to  the 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

'26 

ROMAN  GOLD 

Medallic 
aureus  of 
Constantine 

Tricennial  anniversary  of  Constantine  the 
Great,  namely,  the  medallion  (Fig.  5) 
bearing  the  diademed  head  to  the  right 
with  the  obverse  inscription  constan- 
TiNVS  MAX.  AVG.,  Constantinus  • Max- 
{imus)  Aug{iistus),  and  the  reverse  type 
simply  voTis  xxx,  Vjotis  tricennalibus 
(solutis),  within  a wreath.  The  exergual 

letters,  t s.  e.,  T{he)s{salonicae)  quinta, 
indicate  the  fifth  officina,  mint-shop  or 
section  of  the  mint  of  Thessalonica  (Mau- 
rice, Vol.  II,  p.  478,  No.  viii).  This 
example  from  the  collection  nf  Mr.  E.  T. 
Newell  (formerly  Weber  Collection,  Cat. 
PI.  xlv,  2599)  is  23  mm.  in  diameter,  but 
weighs  only  5.32  grams.  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, a double  solidus  as  its  diameter  sug- 
gests, but  an  aureus,  struck  on  the  basis 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

27 

of  sixty  coins  to  the  gold  pound.  This 
was  the  usual  current  gold  piece  of  the  time 
of  Diocletian  which  was  supplanted  in  309 
by  the  solidus,  first  struck  in  this  year  by 
Constantine  the  Great,  on  the  basis  of 
seventy-two  coins  to  the  pound  of  gold. 
The  aureus  still  continued  to  be  issued 
occasionally  as  a special  commemorative 
piece  or  medallion.  The  features  of  the 
idealized  head  on  this  medallion  are  very 
youthful,  and  it  has  been  suggested  that 
the  head  may  be  that  of  Constantine 
Junior.  One  may  object  that  the  inscrip- 
tion ^ Constantinus  Maximus  Augustus^ 
could  not  refer  to  the  younger  Constantine, 
but  Constantine  II  was  proclaimed  Maxi- 
mus in  the  month  of  September,  337,  and 
although  the  medallion  commemorates  the 
Tricennalia  of  Constantine  the  Great,  cele- 
brated in  335  and  336,  still  it  is  possible 
that  commemorative  medallions  of  this 
type  were  issued  throughout  the  next 
year,  and  that  the  head  and  the  inscription 
on  the  particular  piece  before  us  refers  to 
Constantine  Junior.  The  idealization  of 
the  heads,  however,  on  these  medallic 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

' 28 

ROMAN  GOLD 

pieces  renders  it  an  impossible  matter  to 
decide  with  certainty  from  the  portrait 
alone,  but  in  view  of  the  inscriptions, 
the  head  is  probably  an  idealized  head 
of  Constantine  the  Great  with  juvenile 
aspect. 

The  diadem  of  gold  and  precious  stones 
which  adorns  the  head  of  Constantine  the 
Great  on  the  large  medallion  (PI.  I),  and 
the  similar  diadem  on  the  medallions 
shown  in  Figs.  3 and  5,  (0.  Seeck,  Zeit., 
f.  Niim.,  1898,  p.  28)  is  not  found  on 
coins  with  the  head  of  Licinius  or  of  Lic- 
inius  Junior.  Hence  it  may  be  assumed 
that  it  was  not  adopted  until  after  324.  It 
occurs  contemporaneously  with  the  up- 
lifted head.  A few  decades  later  it  became 
the  symbol  which  distinguished  the  Au- 
gustus from  the  Caesar. 

The  great  anniversaries  of  335,  336,  337 
were  essentially  a Christian  festival. 
Eusebius,  in  his  official  Panegyric,  De 
Laudibus  Constantini,  pronounced  in  335, 
represents  them  as  the  triumph  of  Chris- 
tianity. Religious  ceremonies  were  cele- 
brated in  the  churches.  The  Emperor 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

29 

received  the  bishops  with  great  pomp  in 
his  palace  at  Constantinople.  The  church 
in  Jerusalem  was  consecrated  in  335. 
Embassies  from  various  foreign  countries, 
and  notably  from  India,  came  to  pay  their 
respects  to  the  Emperor. 

SPECIAL  REFERENCES 

For  No.  I 

Kenner,  Fr.  Goldmedaillon  von  Constantin 
dent  Grossen,  Num.  Zeit.  1879,  pp.  234-236. 
PI.  iii,  3. 

Die  aufw'drtssehenden  Bildnisse  Constantin 
des  Grossen  und  seiner  Sdhne,  ibid.,  1880,  pp. 
74-107. 

The  medallion  is  not  mentioned  in  J.  Mau- 
rice’s N umismatique  Constantinienne,  nor  in 
0.  Seeck’s  work  on  the.  medallions  of  Constan- 
tine and  his  family. 

For  No.  2 

Maurice,  Jules.  N umismatique  Constantini- 
enne, Vol.  II,  p.  466,  No.  XV. 

Seeck,  0.  Zu  den  Festniunzen  Constantins 
und  seiner  Familie,  Zeit.  f.  Num.  1898,  p.  25  f. 

Constantine  the  Great,  306-337  a.d. 

3.  Ohv.  D.  N.  CONSTANTINVS  MAX  AVG.  — 

D{ommus)  n(oster)  Constantinus  Max- 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

1 

30 

ROMAN  GOLD 

iimus)  Aug{ustus),  “Our  Lord,  Constan- 
tine, Maximus,  Augustus.”  Bust  of 
Constantine  the  Great  to  the  'right, 
wearing  a laurel  wreath,  and  clad  in  the 
cuirass  and  military  cloak : border  of 
dots. 

Rev.  EQVIS  ROMANVS — Equis  (for  eques) 
Romanus,  “The  Roman  knight.”  The 
Emperor  bareheaded  on  horseback  to 
the  right,  right  hand  upraised,  left  hand 
holding  the  bridle.  In  the  exergue, 
s.  M.  N. — S{acra)  m{oneta)  N{ico- 
mediae)  : border  of  dots. 

Gold  medallion,  solidi.  17  mm. 

6.77  gr.  Dr.  de  Yoanna  Collection, 
Cat.  Egger  xxxix,  1912,  No.  1390  (this 
specimen).  Plate  III. 

Cat.  Hirsch  XXXIII,  1913,  No.  1467,  6.74 
gr. ; Kubitschek,  Ausgewahlte  Romische  Medall- 
ions, No.  236,  6.55  gr. ; Cohen,  Medailles  Im- 
pyiales,  VII,  139,  6.66  gr.,  (Paris);  Gnecchi, 
I MedagUoni  Romani,  6.73  gr.  (Berlin),  PI.  6.12. 
Compare  also,  Gnecehi,  No.  8,  Cohen,  138,  with 
inscription  Eques  Romanus.  J.  Maurice,  Num. 
Constan.  Vol.  Ill,  p.  58,  No.  xii. 

This  li  solidus  was  struck  in  Nicomedia, 
and  the  spelling  on  the  reverse  — equis 
for  eques  — is  an  orthographical  error 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

s 


6 


MEDALLIONS 

31 

probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the  die- 

‘ Eques  ’ 
medallion  of 

cutter  in  Nicomedia  was  a Greek  who  was 

not  perfectly  familiar  with  Latin.  Gnec- 
chi’s  specimen,  p.  15,  No.  8 (Cohen,  138) 
shows  the  correct  spelling  on  a medallion 
also  from  Nicomedia.  The  examples  with 
the  spelling  ‘ ’ are  the  more  numerous. 

The  obverse  shows  a fine  portrait  of  Con- 
stantine the  Great,  more  realistic  than  that 
on  the  larger  medallions  with  uplifted  head. 
The  reverse  type  is  of  special  interest  as  it 
represents  Constantine  as  a member,  or 
rather  leader,  of  the  Roman  Equestrian 
Order. 

This  medallion  may  be  more  easily 

Constantine 

understood  if  we  consider  in  connection 
with  it  the  large  gold  medallions  struck  by 
Constantine,  with  the  reverse  type  repre- 
senting him  standing,  in  senatorial  dress, 
carrying  in  his  right  hand  the  globe,  and 
in  his  left  hand  an  inverted  sceptre  with 
the  inscription  senatvs  — Senatus,  “The 
Senate”;  in  the  exergue,  s.  m.  r., 
S{acra)  m{oneta)  R{omae)  “Sacred  mint  of 
Rome”  (Fig.  6,  Gnecchi,  PI.  7,  17).  This 
reverse  occurs  with  gold  medallions  of  two 

‘ Senatus ’ 
medallion 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

32 

ROMAN  GOLD 

^ ; .L. 

denominations ; first,  the  medallion  equiv- 
alent to  4I  solidi  here  shown  from  the 
Berlin  Museum,  35  mm.  in  diameter, 
weighing  19.85  grs.  from  the  mint  of 
Rome,  having  as  an  obverse  type  the  up- 
lifted, diademed  head  of  the  Emperor; 
second,  a medallion  whose  obverse  shows 
the  bust  of  Constantine  the  Great  in  rich 
senatorial  costume,  bearing  the  sceptre 
surmounted  by  an  eagle  in  his  right  hand 
and  the  globe  in  his  left,  in  the  British 
Museum,  33  mm.  in  diameter  and  weighing 
13.23  gr.,  equivalent  therefore  to  3 solidi 
and  hence,  a ternio,  from  the  mint  of 
Thessalonica  (Cohen,  Med.  Imp.  502; 
Maurice,  N^lm.  Const.,  Vol.  II.,  PI.  xiv, 
14).  These  two  medallions  with  the 
Senatus  reverse,  and  the  smaller  pieces 
with  the  Equis  Romanus  reverse  form  a 
series  of  graduated  weights  of  4I,  3,  and 
solidi,  the  unit  being  the  piece  of  solidi 

which  we  are  discussing  and  the  multiples 
increasing  each  .by  solidi.  These  coins 

are  quite  obviously  connected  by  their 
weights  and  their  types.  Von  Sallet  sup- 
posed that  they  were  memorial  coins 

N.U  MISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

1 

33 

struck  to  commemorate  the  founding  of 
Constantinople,  and  that  they  refer  to  the 
institution  of  the  two  Roman  social  orders 
in  the  new  metropolis.  But,  it  has  been 
objected,  we  know  already  of  a series  of 
foundation  medallions,  all  of  which  were 
struek  in  Constantinople  itself,  whereas 
none  of  the  examples  with  the  senatorial 
and  equestrian  types  is  known  to  have 
been  issued  in  Constantinople.  Also,  we 
have  no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the 
Equestrian  Order  in  Constantinople. 
0.  Seeck  believes  that  the  reverses  refer 
to  those  elasses  to  which  the  medallions 
were  designed  to  be  distributed.  The 
knights  would  receive  the  i J gold  medallion 
as  a souvenir;  the  senators,  and  those  of 
their  rank,  sueh  as  the  cons’ils,  the  3 and 
4i  pieces.  He  refers  to  the  letters  of 
Symmachus,  to  the  writings  of  Ammianus 
Marcellinus,  to  support  his  theory  that 
the  Emperor  gave  gifts  to  important  per- 
sonages on  the  oecasion  of  certain  fetes. 
His  theory  in  regard  to  the  distribution  of 
the  medallions  will  be  discussed  when  we 
have  finished  describing  all  the  medallions. 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

34 

ROMAN  GOLD 

Date  of 
‘ eques  ’ 
medallion 

The  date  at  which  our  medallion  No.  3 
was  issued  is  not  to  be  absolutely  deter- 
mined by  any  indication  on  the  group  of 
three  coins  which  have  just  been  described, 
but  Seeck  compares  this  group  with 
another  series  of  three  gold  medallions. 
Two  of  this  second  group  are  here  repre- 
sented, namely,  our  No.  2,  the  triple 
solidus  of  Constantine  Junior,  PI.  II,  and 
the  double  solidus  of  this  same  prince 
(Fig.  i).  A third  coin  belonging  here  is 
the  binio  in  the  British  Museum  bearing 
the  bust  of  Constantine  Junior  and  refer- 
ring, like  the  two  others,  to  his  Decennial 
anniversary.  The  coins  of  this  second 
group  were  issued  at  the  mints  of  Thes- 
salonica  and  Nicomedia,  and  were  un- 
doubtedly intended  as  complimentary 
gifts  on  the  occasion  of  the  Imperial 
anniversary  as  we  have  seen.  They  all 
relate  to  Constantine  Junior  and  range  in 
weight  from  3 to  2 solidi,  the  unit  (here 
assumed),  being  the  solidus.  Seeck  points 
out  the  resemblance  in  various  points  be- 
tween the  two  series,  and  also  the  resem- 
blance in  the  profiles  on  the  medallions 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

35 

struck  at  Thessalonica,  namely,  the  triple 
solidus  of  Constantine  the  Great,  which  is 
the  second  piece  of  the  senatorial-eques- 
trian group,  and  the  double  solidus  of 
Constantine  Junior,  which  is  the  second 
piece  of  the  second  group  (Fig.  i)  and 
concludes  that  all  these  pieces  were  struck 
probably  about  the  time  of  the  Decennial 
celebration  of  Constantine  Junior. 

The  mints  represented  on  the  medallions 
of  these  two  groups  are  Rome,  Thessalonica, 
and  Nicomedia.  If  these  pieces  belong 
together  in  point  of  time,  it  may  be 
inferred  that  they  belong  to  the  period 
after  Nicomedia  had  been  joined  to  the 
Empire  of  Constantine  by  the  defeat  of 
Licinius  in  324,  and  before  the  foundation 
of  Constantinople  in  330,  since  this  mint 
is  unrepresented.  The  latter  is  a negative 
course  of  argument,  but  the  mints  that  do 
occur  fit  in  very  well  with  the  theory  con- 
structed by  Seeck,  Constantine,  as  we 
know,  journeyed  to  Rome  in  326  and  there 
repeated  the  celebration  of  theVicennalia 
which  he  had  already  held  in  Nicomedia 
the  year  before,  but  this  time  in  the  centre 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

36 

ROMAN  GOLD 

of  the  Empire.  Now  Rome  was  naturally 
the  place  where  senators  and  knights  lived 
in  the  greatest  number  — one  of  the 
Senatus  medallions  (Fig.  6)  was  struck 
there  — and  if  the  medallions  were  de- 
signed for  distribution  in  the  capital,  they 
may  have  been  struck  in  Nicomedia  and 
Thessalonica  and  brought  to  Rome  by 
the  Emperor.  The  theory  is  plausible  and 
forms  an  interesting  explanation  of  the 
senatorial  and  equestrian  types.  Our 
Equis  Romanus  medallion  struck  in  Ni- 
comedia, in  Bithynia,  may  therefore  have 
been  distributed  by  Constantine  in  Rome. 
Yet  there  were  senators  and  knights  in 
the  provinces,  and  the  issues  of  the  pro- 
vincial mints  may  just  as  well  have  been 
struck  for  local  distribution.  Summing 
up  all  the  bits  of  evidence  available,  the 
year  326  seems  a most  likely  date  for  the 
striking  of  the  senatorial-equestrian  medal- 
lions of  Constantine  the  Great. 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 


37 


SPECIAL  REFERENCES 

Sallet,  Alfred  von.  Der  Equis  Romanus 
auf  Goldmedaillons  Constantins  des  Grossen,  Zeit. 
f.  Num.  1876,  pp.  129-131. 

Seeck,  O.  Zu  dent  Festm'unzen  Constantins 
und  seiner  Familie,  Zeit.  f.  Num.,  1898,  p.  23  f. 


Constantine  the  Great,  306-337  a.d. 

4.  Ohv.  IMP.  CONSTANTINVS  P.  F.  AVG.  — Binio,  with 
Imp{erator)  Constantinus  p{ius)  f{elix) 
Aug{ustus),  “The  Emperor  Constantine, 
reverent,  fortunate,  Augustus.”  Bust  of 
the  Emperor,  Constantine  the  Great,  to 
the  right,  with  radiate  diadem,  cuirass 
and  military  cloak ; border  of  dots. 

Rev.  AVGG.  GLORIA  — Aiig{ustorum) 
duorum  gloria,  “The  glory  of  the  two 
Emperors.”  A fortified  gateway  of  the 
city  of  Treves  with  one  entrance ; above 
the  closed  entrance  to  the  gateway 
is  a statue  probably  representing  Con- 
stantine, standing  to  the  left  in  military 
dress  and  cloak,  with  right  hand  up- 
raised, holding  scepter  in  his  left ; in  the 
distance  one  sees  the  walls  of  the  city 
and  the  tops  of  three  towers  or  gates. 

On  either  side  of  the  gateway  are  seated 


AND  MONOGRAPHS 


38 

ROMAN  GOLD 

two  captives  to  right  and  to  left  in  an 
attitude  of  distress.  The  figure  on  the 
right  wears  a Phrygian  cap.  Beaded 
lines  from  their  necks  seem  to  represent 
chains.  Below  the  gateway  is  the 
Moselle  River  represented  by  wavy  lines, 
which  is  crossed  by  a bridge  of  which 
two  arches  are  visible.  In  the  exergue, 
p.  TRE  — P{rima)  Tre{virorum),  “First 
mint-shop  {oficina)  of  Treves”:  border 
of  dots. 

Gold  medallion.  Binio  or  double 
solidus.  17  mm.  8.85  gr,  Berlin. 

Plate  IV. 

Cat.  Hirsch  XII,  PI.  xiv,  670  (this  speci- 
men) ; Cohen,  Med.  Imper.  Vol.  VII,  236 ; 
Gnecchi,  Med.  Rom.  Plate  7 (2  and  3). 

This  most  interesting  piece  in  the  Berlin 
Museum  Collection  weighs  somewhat  less 
than  the  other  two  known  specimens, 
namely,  the  Paris  example,  8.95  gr.,  and 
the  example  in  Sir  Arthur  Evans’  Collec- 
tion, weighing  8.97  gr.,  published  in  the 
Numismatic  Chronicle,  1910,  pp.  103-106. 

Maurice  assigns  this  coin  to  the  eighth 
issue  of  the  mint  of  Treves  or  the  period 
between  September,  326,  after  the  deaths 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

39 

of  Crispus  and  Fausta,  wife  of  Constantine 
the  Great,  and  May  ii,  330,  the  date  of 
the  solemn  inauguration  of  Constantinople. 
Treves  was  at  this  time  still  the  principal 
city  of  Gaul.  During  the  years  327-329, 
Constantine  was  occupied  in  reorganizing 
the  frontiers  of  the  Empire  along  the 
Danube  and  the  Rhine.  He  stayed 
chiefly  in  the  provinces  bordering  on  the 
Danube,  but  he  went  to  Treves  at  the  end 
of  328  and  the  beginning  of  329,  and  indica- 
tions drawn  from  the  'Theodosian  Code 
allow  us  to  infer  a stay  of  some  length  at 
Treves  during  which  the  striking  of  this 
medallion  may  have  been  ordered. 

The  formula  augg.  in  the  plural  is 
remarkable  since  this  medallion,  according 
to  Maurice,  belongs  to  the  issue  here 
described,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  letters 
p.  TRE.  in  the  exergue,  whereas  for  several 
years,  two  years,  anyway,  there  had  been 
only  one  Augustus,  namely  Constantine, 
in  the  Empire.  Licinius,  the  other  Aug- 
ustus, had  been  executed  in  324,  hence, 
Maurice  concludes,  the  formula  augg. 
GLORIA,  Augustorum  duorum  gloria,  was 

The  formula 
Augg. 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

40 

ROMAN  GOLD 

The  date 

probably  a stereotyped  formula  preserved 
by  custom. 

Constantine  resided  at  Treves  for  several 
months  during  the  years  306,  307,  310-316, 
328-329,  and  331.  Were  it  not  for  Mau- 
rice’s dating  based  upon  his  study  of  the 
whole  Constantinian  coinage  at  all  the 
mints  of  the  Empire,  one  might  have 
selected  the  year  310  when  Constantine 
was  at  Treves  and  celebrated  his  Quin- 
quennial anniversary  (anticipated).  In 
this  year  was  delivered  the  oration  of 
Eumenius,  the  official  panegyrist,  “in  an 
important  city  on  a larg6'  river  which 
empties  into  the  Rhine  above  Cologne,” 
that  is  to  say,  Treves.  From  this  oration 
we  learn  that  Constantine  had  restored 
the  city  walls  throughout.  The  exergual 
formula,  however,  p.  tre.  — Prima  Tre- 
virorum,  shows  that  this  year  is  impossible 
because  Treves  had  two  ateliers  of  the 
mint  designated  Prima  and  Secunda  only 
after  the  year  313.  The  period  313-316, 
when  there  were  two  Augusti,  would  also 
seem  more  suitable  when  we  consider  the 
reverse  inscription,  Aiigg.  gloria.  But  this 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

41 

again  does  not  square  with  Maurice’s 
assignment  to  the  period,  326-330,  of  the 
particular  exergual  formula  used,  p.  tre. 
Therefore,  the  contradiction  in  the  reverse 
inscription  is  explained  (Maurice,  Vol.  2, 
p.  412)  as  due  to  a certain  notion  of  the 
plurality  of  the  Augusti  not  corresponding 
to  reality,  and  to  a certain  administrative 
routine. 

In  spite  of  the  weight  of  evidence,  one 
is  inclined  nevertheless  stubbornly  to 
doubt  the  assignment  of  this  medallion 
to  the  eighth  issue  of  the  mint  of  Treves, 
comprised  within  the  limits.  Sept.  326,  i.e.^ 
after  the  deaths  of  Crispus  and  Fausta, 
and  May  ii,  330,  the  date  of  the  inaugura- 
tion of  Constantinople.  If  it  were  only  a 
question  of  minor  issues,  such  as  bronze 
or  silver,  one  might  accept  Maurice’s 
thesis.  But  this  gold  medallion  repre- 
sents a special  issue  for  which  a special 
die  had  to  be  engraved,  and,;  as  such,  its 
legends  ought  to  correspond  to  historical 
fact.  Now  during  326-330  Constantine 
was  the  sole  Augustus,  but  the  inscription 
Gloria  Augg.  indicates  two  Augusti,  and 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

42 

ROMAN  GOLD 

The  radiate 
head 

it  seems  an  impossibility  that  such  a 
formula  would  have  been  used  after  the 
death  of  Licinius  in  324,  on  a conspicuous 
commemorative  medallion  struck  by  Con- 
stantine in  the  most  important  city  in  his 
realm.  Furthermore,  although  Maurice, 
in  defence  of  his  thesis  that  the  formulas 
Providentiae  Augg.  and  Gloria  Augg.  on 
coins  which  he  assigns  to  this  period  were 
preserved  partly  by  custom  and  partly 
from  a religious  sense  attaching  to  the 
idea  of  the  plural  personality  of  the 
Augustus,  he  is  forced  to  admit  that  the 
mint  of  Sirmium  which  was  under  Con- 
stantine’s direct  surveillance,  and  a place 
where  he  often  resided,  never  employed 
the  plural  form  Augg.  after  the  death  of 
Licinius.  The  period  after  313  and  be- 
fore 324  seems  in  every  way  the  more  prob- 
able date  for  the  issue  of  this  Treves  piece. 

The  obverse  type  shows  Constantine 
with  the  radiate  head.  This  type  which 
embodies  a pagan  symbolism  and  which 
goes  back  to  the  earliest  days  of  the 
Empire,  is  but  rarely  found  on  Constan- 
tine’s coins. 

1 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

43 

The  symbolism  of  the  radiate  head  first 
occurs  on  the  coins  of  the  Seleucid  kings  of 
Syria.  The  kings  of  this  dynasty  and  the 
Ptolemaic  rulers  of  Egypt  imitated  their 
predecessor,  Alexander  the  Great,  to  whose 
kingdom  they  succeeded,  not  only  in 
placing  their  portraits  upon  the  coins  but, 
also,  in  assuming  symbols  of  divinity.  The 
first  king  of  the  Seleucid  line  who  em- 
phasized openly  his  claim  to  divinity  is 
Antiochus  IV  Epiphanes,  and  accordingly 
on  his  coins,  chiefly  the  bronze  ones,  he 
is  represented  with  a crown  of  spikes 
similar  to  that  worn  by  the  Sun-god  Helios 
or  Apollo. 

Thus,  the  king  was  assimilated  to  the 
Sun-god,  and  the  sun’s  rays  represent  a 
deification.  This  symbol  of  deification 
was  transmitted  from  the  Seleucid  and 
Ptolemaic  monarchies  to  the  Roman 
Caesars,  but  the  radiate  head  on  Roman 
coins  is  at  first  found  only*on  the  heads  of 
the  deified  Emperor  after  his  death.  For 
example,  the  deified  Augustus  occurs  with 
the  radiate  head  on  the  coinage  of  his 
successors,  Tiberius  and  Caligula.  So, 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

44 

ROMAN  GOLD 

also,  the  head  of  the  Emperor  Claudius 
who  was  the  third  Roman  (after  Julius 
Caesar  and  Augustus)  to  be  declared  a 
divus  by  the  Senate  appears  with  the 
radiate  head  after  his  death.  Subse- 
quently, however,  under  Nero  the  Em- 
peror is  represented  as  radiate  in  his  own 
lifetime.  This  is  in  accord  with  what  we 
know  of  Nero’s  attitude,  on  the  subject, 
for  he  is  said  to  have  demanded  divine 
honors  and  a temple  for  his  worship. 
(Tacitus,  Annates, 'KN,  74.)  Furthermore, 
there  is  an  aureus  (Cohen,  44)  bearing  the 
inscription  Augustus  Germanicus  which, 
on  the  reverse  represents  Nero  standing 
and  wearing  a radiate  crown.  This  coin 
which  is  to  be  explained  in  connection  with 
the  aureus  of  the  Augustus  Augusta  type 
representing  Nero  and  Messalina  in  a sort 
of  disguised  deification,  shows  again  Nero’s 
desire  to  be  registered  as  a god  during  his 
lifetime.  After  Nero,  the  radiate  head 
becomes  a commonplace,  and  is  used  in 
the  coinage  in  a technical  way  to  dis- 
tinguish certain  denominations  in  bronze. 
Nero  himself,  be  it  noted,  never  went  so 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

1 

45 

far  as  to  introduce  the  ‘crown  of  divinity’ 
in  his  gold  or  silver,  but  introduced  it 
modestly  in  the  bronze.  That  it  had  a 
real  meaning,  however,  is  sufficiently 
proved  by  the  fact  that  Nero  employed 
two  other  symbols,  the  aegis  and  the  globe, 
as  imperial  symbols  of  divinity. 

It  may  seem  surprising  that  Constantine 
should  allow  his  portrait  with  the  radiate 
head  to  be  placed  upon  his  coinage  after 
his  own  conversion  to  Christianity  which 
took  place  in  312.  But  perhaps  the  sym- 
bol had  long  ceased  to  have  any  special 
meaning.  Yet  it  is  somewhat  remarkable 
because  the  radiate  head  occurs  but  seldom 
on  his  coins  and  medallions.  Two  in- 
stances are  the  gold  binios  of  the  mint  of 
Nicomedia  showing  the  radiate  bust  of 
Constantine  to  the  left  (Cohen,  Vol.  VII, 
no.  391,  p.  321).  A third  example  is  a 
gold  binio  (Cohen,  683)  with  the  radiate 
bust  to  the  right,  of  the  mint  of  Treves. 
All  three  pieces  are  to  be  dated  after  324, 
a dozen  years,  therefore,  after  the  con- 
version to  Christianity.  There  must  be 
some  special  reason  why  this  pagan  type  is 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

46 

ROMAN  GOLD 

The  Sun-god 
as  hereditary 
deity  of  Con- 
stantine 

perpetuated  so  long  on  the  coinage.  And 
we  find  an  explanation  if  we  look  more 
closely  into  the  accounts  of  various 
authors  who  describe  the  life  of  Con- 
stantine. The  orator,  Eumenius,  who 
pronounced  the  official  panegyric  ad- 
dressed to  Constantine  at  Treves  in  July, 
310,  described  Constantine’s  descent  from 
Claudius  II  by  Constantius  Chlorus,  amd 
notes  Constantine’s  cult  of  the  Sun-god 
who  was  the  hereditary  deity  of  the  second 
Flavian  dynasty.  The  coins  showing 
various  types  relating  to  the  Sun-god, 
namely,  the  bust  of  the  sun,  the  Sun-god 
in  a chariot,  and  the  inscription  Sol  Invic- 
tus  begin  about  309.  It  is  due  to  this 
tradition  of  the  solar  origin  of  the  dynasty, 
that  Constantine  allowed  his  head  to  be 
represented  as  radiate  long  after  his  con- 
version. When  the  city  of  Constantinople 
was  formally  inaugurated  as  the  capital 
of  the  Empire  in  330,  a gigantic  statue  of 
Apollo  Helios,  with  features  assimilated 
to  those  of  Constantine,  was  erected  in 
the  Forum  of  the  city  on  a column  of 
porphyry  which  is  still  standing  to-day. 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

1 

47 

This  statue  represented  the  Emperor  as  a 
Solar  god.  It  may  have  been,  as  Maurice 
thinks,  planned  by  the  pagan  officials  of 
the  Senate  who  presided  in  general  over 
the  organization  of  the  new  capital. 
Nevertheless,  the  Emperor  did  not  forbid 
its  erection  although  he  intended  to  make 
Constantinople  a Christian  city  and  would 
not  allow  the  performance  of  any  cere- 
monies connected  with  the  pagan  cults. 
Art  types,  however,  persist  long  after  the 
practice  of  the  cults  originally  connected 
with  them. 

The  Roman  city  of  Treves  {Augusta 
Trevirorum)  goes,  back  to  the  old  Gallic 
tribe  of  the  Treviri,  whose  chief  town  was 
besieged  by  Julius  Caesar.  It  lay  on  the 
right  bank  of  the  Moselle  about  90  miles 
from  Coblenz  where  the  Moselle  joins  the 
Rhine.  Whether  it  was  surrounded  by 
walls  in  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar  is  not 
known,  but  it  was  fortified  certainly  by 
Augustus  in  15  b.c.,  and  a colony  was 
established  there  under  Claudius.  In 
69  A.D.  the  walls  of  Treves  are  mentioned 
by  Tacitus  {Historiae  IV,  Ch.  62).  In  the 

Walls  of 
Tr&ves 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

48 

ROMAN  GOLD 

second  half  of  the  third  century,  the  town 
was  surrounded  by  strong  walls  and  the 
city  became  the  residence  of  the  Roman 
emperors,  and  a vantage  point  from  which 
to  wage  war  against  the  Germanic  tribes. 
Diocletian,  at  the  time  of  the  re-organiza- 
tion of  the  Empire,  made  Treves  the  capital 
not  only  of  Belgica  Prima  but  of  the  whole 
of  Gaul.  For  a century,  from  the  time  of 
Maximianus  to  Maximus,  286  to  388,  it 
was  the  royal  residence  for  all  the  Em- 
perors except  Julian,  who  lived  in  Paris. 
It  was-  the  administrative  centre  from 
which  Gaul,  Britain,  and  Spain  were  ruled 
and  was  called  the  “Second  Rome”  and 
the  “Rome  beyond  the  Alps.” 

There  must  necessarily  have  been  many 
enlargements  of  the  encircling  walls  from 
time  to  time,  but  there  is  now  no  trace  of 
the  early  walls  and  those  now  surviving 
belong  to  the  city  at  its  greatest  extent. 
The  accompanying  ground  plan  of  the 
city  of  Treves,  adapted  from  the  copper 
plate  in  Schmidt’s  work  on  Treves  (see 
Special  References),  shows  the  lines  of 
the  old  Roman  wall.  The  ancient  city 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

49 

extended  much  farther  to  the  east  and 
southwest  than  at  the  present  time.  This 
is  shown  clearly  on  the  plan  on  which  the 
mediaeval  walls  with  the  encircling  boule- 
vards are  shown.  On  the  northeast  side 
the  modern  city  wall  is  practically  identical 
with  the  Roman  wall.  The  wall  which 
bounds  the  city  on  the  side  opposite  the 
river  runs  close  to  the  ancient  amphi- 
theatre indicated  on  the  plan  and  meets 
at  a sharp  angle  the  southwest  wall  which 
runs  about  parallel  to  the  northeast  wall 
through  the  suburb  of  St.  Mathias  and 
reaching  to  the  river.  The  area  enclosed 
within  these  fortifications  was  more  than 
double  that  of  the  modern  city  and  the 
ancient  population  has  been  estimated  as 
more  than  double  the  population  of  the 
city  in  1905. 

There  has  been  practically  no  published 
discussion  concerning  the  gateway  repre- 
sented on  the  Constantinian  medallion 
(PI.  IV)  in  numismatic  and  architectural 
works.  ^ Donaldson  does  not  mention  the 
medallion  in  his  Architectura  Numisma- 
tica,  although  the  Paris  example  was 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

50 

ROMAN  GOLD 

The  Porta 
Nigra 

illustrated  in  Cohen’s  Medailles  Im- 
periales  VII,  p.  255).  Sir  Arthur  Evans, 
in  his  article  in  the  Numismatic  Chronicle, 
1910,  does  not  identify  the  gate  with  any 
particular  gateway  of  the  city.  In  a 
passing  reference,  M.  Babelon  in  the 
Traits  des  Monnaies  Grecq.  et  Rom.,  Vol.  I 
p.  52,  identifies  the  gate  on  the  medallion 
with  the  Porta  Alba.® 

Upon  first  investigation  after  a com- 
parison of  the  imposing  remains  of  the 
gateway  known  as  the  Porta  Nigra,  one 
of  the  finest  Roman  gateways  still  stand- 
ing, with  the  representation  on  the  medal- 
lion, the  natural  conclusion  would  be  that 
this  gateway,  which  it  would  seem  must 
have  been  the  principal  porta  of  the  city, 
is  the  one  figured  on  the  coin.  This  has 
probably  been  the  belief  of  most  archae- 
ologists familiar  with  the  Porta  Nigra  and 
the  medallion.  The  fact  that  there  appear 
to  be  four  towers  instead  of  two  is  in  no 
wise  disturbing,  although  the  Porta  Nigra 
had  but  two,  for  coins  seldom  bear  repre- 
sentations of  archaeological  objects  which 
are  faithful  in  detail.  Furthermore,  the 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

51 

representation  is  of  the  whole  walled 
enclosure  with  numerous  towers,  and  the 
two  outer  towers  on  the  medallion  prob- 
ably represent  single  towers  situated  at 
intervals  on  the  encircling  wall  (of  whose 
existence  the  remains  to-day  bear  evidence) 
and  do  not  belong  to  the  gate  proper. 

But  a closer  study  of  the  walls  and  plan 
of  the  city  has  revealed  the  fact  that  the 
Porta  Nigra  cannot  possibly  be  the  gate- 
way represented  on  the  binio.  In  the  first 
place,  the  Moselle  River  does  not  flow 
closely  enough  to  the  city  walls  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  Porta  Nigra  for  it  to  form 
naturally  an  integral  part  of  a picture  of 
the  city  as  seen  from  this  gateway.  In 
the  second  place,  there  is  the  detail  of  the 
bridge  clearly  depicted  with  its  arches 
across  the  river ; and,  as  the  extant 
remains  of  this  bridge  and  the  results  of 
Schmidt’s  detailed  study  of  the  walls 
show,  there  must  have  been  an  important 
porta  at  the  bridge-head  in  the  west  wall. 
(Plan  of  Treves,  Gate  4.)  Finally,  the 
situation  of  the  ruins  now  extant,  the 
Emperor’s  palace,  the  amphitheatre,  etc. 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

52 

ROMAN  GO  L D 

The  four 
gates  of 
Treves 

(Plan  of  Treves),  indicates  clearly  that  not 
only  was  there  an  important  gate  at  the 
bridge-head,  but  that  this  was  the  prin- 
cipal entrance  to  the  city  although,  un- 
fortunately, all  traces  of  it  are  now  lost. 
But  most  happily  in  pursuing  the  inquiry 
further,  the  writer  was  rewarded  by  dis- 
covering that  the  late  compilation,  known 
as  the  Gesta  Trevirorum  (about  1132), 
contains  a full,  albeit  somewhat  florid, 
description  of  all  the  gateways  of  Treves 
and  confirms  fully  the  above  deductions, 
by  describing  the  bridge  gate  as  the  most 
elaborate  structure  of  all. 

There  were  four  gateways  leading  into 
the  city  of  Augusta  Trevirorum.  The 
best  knowm  of  these  is  the  only  one  now 
extant,  the  so-called  Porta  Nigra,  which 
was  also  known  as  the  Porta  Romana  and 
the  Porta  Martis,  and  lies  about  the  centre 
of  the  northeast  wall.  (See  Plan  of 
Treves,  Gate  i.)  A second  gate  was 
situated  at  the  opposite  end  of  the  long 
street  to  which  the  Porta  Nigra  formed 
one  terminus.  (Gate  2.)  WTiile  a third 
gate  probably  was  situated  about  the 

N U ]VI  I S M A T I C NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

53 

middle  of  the  east  wall,  and  from  all 
accounts  was  formed  from  the  openings 
of  the  amphitheatre  itself.  (Gate  3.) 
A fourth  gate  is  known  to  have  existed  at 
the  head  of  the  bridge  across  the  Moselle 
and  formed  the  terminus  to  a long  street 
which  led  diagonally  into  the  main  artery 
which  connected  the  Porta  Nigra  (Gate  i) 
and  the  southernmost  gate  (Gate  2)  and 
joined  it  at  the  market  place  (Gate  4). 
These  gates  are  all  described  in  the  Gesta 
Treverorum  usque  ad  Annum  Christi 
Mcxxxii  (In  Leibnitz,  Accessiones  his- 
toricae,  1698,  V.  i,  p.  124),  Ch.  xxiii. 

Crevit  itaque  civitas  ilia  regia  omni  ut 
dictum  est  excellentia  sublimis,  muris 
ac  vallo  circumdata,  turribus  altis  et 
firmis  munita,  quator  habens  publicas 
portas,  quator  mundi  climatibus  op- 
posit  as,  quarum  prima  quae  ad  septen- 
trionem  respicit  ex  lapidibus  quadratis 
non  coemento  sed  ferro  mirabili  arte 
compaginatis  constructa,  nigra  porta  vel 
Martis  nomen  accepit.  De  secunda 
quae  est  ad  orientem  porta  alba  dicitur. 
. . . Tertia  vero  quae  ad  meridionalem 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 



54 

ROMAN  GOLD 

spectat  plagam  porta  media  nominatur 
quod  per  earn  ingredientibus  per  mediam 
civitatem  iter  pateat.  Quarta  autem 
videlicet  ad  solis  occubitum  sita  ex  lapi- 
dibus  quadrangulis  opere  praeclarissimo 
fuit  instituta  cuius  in  exitibus  static  vel 
portus  navium,  per  alveum  supra  nomi- 
nati  fluminis  secus  decurrentis  hinc  et 
inde  venientium,  pro  quibus  per  noctem 
illuminandis  haec  eadem  porta  quasi  sole 
et  luna  ac  stellis  erat  auro  ac  lapidibus 
preciosis  artificiose  fabricatis  insignita 
unde  ab  operis  praeclaritate  incluta  porta 
dicta  est  ex  nomine. 

“And  so  that  royal  city  flourished, 
supreme  in  every  form  of  excellence  as 
it  was  said,  surrounded  by  walls  and  a 
rampart,  fortified  by  tall  strong  towers 
and  possessed  of  four  public  gateways 
facing  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth,  of 
which  the  first  looking  toward  the  north 
was  built  of  square  blocks,  fastened 
together  not  with  cement  but  by  iron  in 
a marvellous  manner ; it  was  called  the 
Porta  Nigra  — the  Black  Gate,  or  the 
Porta  Martis,  the  Gateway  of  War; 
as  regards  the  second,  which  lies  toward 
the  east,  it  is  called  the  Porta  Alba, 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

55 

the  White  Gate.  . . . Now,  the  third 
which  looks  toward  the  south  is  called 
the  Porta  Media,  or  Middle  Gate, 
because  as  one  enters  the  city  by  it,  the 
road  leads  right  through  the  middle  of 
the  town.  But  the  fourth  gate  situated 
toward  the  west  was  built  of  quadrangu- 
lar blocks  aixd  was  a very  famous  struc- 
ture. At  its  exit,  there  was  a roadstead 
or  harbour  for  the  ships  which  sailed  up 
and  down  the  aforementioned  stream. 
This  same  gateway  was  marvellously 
adorned  with  gold  and  precious  stones 
artificially  wrought,  so  that  at  night 
these  ships  might  be  illuminated  as  it 
were  by  the  sun,  the  moon  and  the  stars, 
whence,  on  account  of  its  marvellous 
construction,  the  gate  was  called  ‘The 
Famous  Gateway.  ’ ” 

From  this  description  we  may  confi- 
dently assign  the  names  of  the  gates 
as  follows:  i.  Porta  Nigra.  2.  Porta 

Media.  3.  Porta  Alba.  4.  Porta  Incluta. 
The  gateway  on  our  medallion  as  has 
been  indicated  can  scarcely  be  any 
other  than  the  fourth  gate  called  Incluta 
Porta  in  the  Gesta.  The  coin  type  includes 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

56 

ROMAN  GOLD 

The  bridge 
gateway, 
Incluta 
Porta 

the  Moselle  River  in  the  foreground,  and  a 
bridge  built  upon  arches  leading  to  the 
gate.  A second  passage  in  the  Gesta, 
Ch.  IV,  describes  the  bridge  gate,  as 
follows : 

Quarta  porta  versus  occidentem  con- 
struct a est  ad  littus  Mosellae  quae  mira 
sui  operositate  et  turrium  incomparabili 
pulchritudine  ceteras  portus  excelluit 
et  ob  hoc  inclytae  portae  vocabulum 
sumpsit,  Hanc  portam  stellis  ex  auro 
factis  mirabiliter  pinxere,  quae  portui 
navium  proximum  nocte  dieque  luminis 
officium  praebuere.  “The  fourth  gate- 
way towards  the  west  was  erected  on  the 
banks  of  the  Moselle,  which,  on  account 
of  its  marvellously  elaborate  construc- 
tion, and  the  incomparable  beauty  of 
its  towers,  excelled  the  other  gateways, 
and  for  this  reason  took  the  name  of  the 
Famous  Gate.  This  gateway  is  wonder- 
fully decorated  with  stars  made  of  gold 
which  offered  by  day  and  by  night  a 
very  near  substitute  for  light  to  the  ship 
harbour.’’ 

That  portion  of  the  description  which 
relates  to  the  decoration  of  the  bridge 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

57 

gate  or  Incluta  Porta  with  gold  and  pre- 
cious stones  for  the  purpose  of  illuminating 
the  ships  which  came  to  anchor  near  the 
bridge,  may^  be  dismissed  as  romancing 
on  the  part  of  the  writer  of  the  Gesta. 
There  is  no  need,  however,  to  question  the 
general  accuracy  of  the  description.  The 
modern  bridge  across  the  Moselle  is  con- 
structed upon  the  ancient  Roman  but- 
tresses which  formed  a powerful  structure, 
and  must  have  been  the  sole  bridge  for  the 
ancient  Roman  city.  The  Gesta  (Ch.  V) 
bears  witness  to  the  importance  and 
powerful  character  of  this  bridge.  After 
mentioning  the  Temple  and  Arch  of 
Mercury,  the  passage  reads- : 

Non  longe  ab  hinc  super  Mosellam 
ex  magnis  lapidibus  ferro  plumboque 
cunpactis  pontem  construxere  quern 
nulla  vetustas  labefactare  nulli  ductus 
possunt  dissolvere.  “ Not  far  from  here, 
across  the  Moselle,  there  was  built  a 
bridge  of  huge  blocks,  fastened  with 
iron  and  lead,  which  neither  age  could 
weaken,  nor  the  current  of  the  river 
destroy. 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

S8 

ROMAN  GOLD 

The  Moselle 
bridge 

This  description  is  borne  out  by  the 
modern  investigation  of  the  bridge  in  the 
work  of  Ch.  W.  Schmidt  (see  Special 
References).  The  Moselle  bridge  is  said 
to  be  631  feet  long  between  the  land  but- 
tresses, but  was  originally  longer.  The 
extreme  pier  on  the  left,  and  the  two  piers 
on  the  right,  are  constructed  of  large  blocks 
of  blue  limestone,  said  to  have  come  from 
the  neighborhood  of  Namur  in  Belgium. 
These  are  fastened  together  without 
mortar,  being  held  in  place  by  metal 
clamps,  just  as  the  blocks  of  the  Porta 
Nigra  were  fastened  together,  as  is  evi- 
denced by  the  monument  itself,  which  is 
still  extant^  and  the  testimony  of  the  Gesta 
(Ch.  xxiii).  Five  other  buttresses  are 
constructed  of  basaltic  lava,  said  to  be 
from  Mayenne  in  Normandy,  France. 
There  are  eight  arches,  but  the  spans 
themselves  are  not  of  Roman  origin,  but 
later.  The  transportation  of  these  great 
blocks  must  have  entailed  an  enormous 
cost,  and  this  factor  will  be  considered 
when  we  take  up  the  question  of  the  date 
of  the  walls,  towers,  and  bridge. 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

59 

A glance  at  our  ground  plan  of  Treves 
shows  that  the  bridge  lies  in  a straight  line 
leading  towards  the  ruins  of  the  Emperor’s 
palace,  along  which,  very  probably,  lay 
an  ancient  road.  Thus  the  bridge  gateway 
would  have  formed  the  principal  entry 
to  the  ancient  city  whose  centre  was  near 
the  palace  and  amphitheatre  of  which  the 
remains  are  still  to  be  seen.  It  would  be 
natural  enough  then,  that  the  gateway 
chosen  for  representation  on  the  medallion 
should  be  the  Incluta  Porta. 

The  date  of  the  walls  of  Treves  and  the 
gateway  now  standing,  the  Porta  Nigra, 
has  been  the  subject  of  considerable  dis- 
cussion. Our  authorities  on  the  whole, 
however,  are  pretty  well  agreed  that  the 
archaeological  indications  point  to  a pe- 
riod not  earlier  than  that  of  Postumus, 
about  258,  and  not  as  late  as  the  time  of 
Valentinian  I and  Gratianus,  364-383. 
Schmidt,  whose  opinion  is  regarded  as  the 
most  correct  by  Behr,  who  has  written  the 
most  recent  work  on  the  Porta  Nigra, 
believes  that  Constantine  the  Great  was 
principally  responsible  for  the  erection  of 

Date  of  the 
walls 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

6o 

ROMAN  GOLD 

the  great  public  buildings,  walls,  and 
bridge  of  Treves.  He  argues  that  no 
other  Emperor  resided  in  Treves  so  long 
as  Constantine  the  Great,  and  no  other 
Emperor  is  mentioned  by  ancient  writ- 
ers in  connection  with  the  restoration 
of  the  city  and  reconstruction  of  the 
monuments.  Constantine  the  Great  lived 
in  Treves  in  306,  307,  313-316,  then  again, 
in  329  and  331,  at  certain  intervals. 
The  panegyrist,  Eumenius,  says  in  an 
oration  to  Constantine,  delivered  in  310 
on  the  occasion  of  an  anniversary  of  the 
foundation  of  Treves,  which  was  also  the 
Quinquennial  anniversary  of  Constantine 
— “May  a new  foundation  day  of  the 
city  be  celebrated  on  account  of  the  bene- 
factions of  the  Emperor  since  the  city  walls 
have  been  restored  throughout  and  since 
the  city  is  in  a certain  sense  grateful  for 
the  devastation  suffered  some  time  ago.” 
From  this  passage  we  learn  that  Constan- 
tine the  Great  had  just  ornamented  the 
city  anew  and  reconstructed  its  monu- 
ments. 

Since  the  archaeological  investigations 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

6i 

in  general  tend  to  establish  the  first  half 
of  the  fourth  century  as  the  date  of  the 
principal  monuments  now  standing,  and 
since  Constantine  chose  the  Incluta  Porta 
and  the  Moselle  bridge  for  representation 
on  his  medallion,  we  may  reasonably  con- 
clude from  his  long  period  of  residence  in 
this  capital,  that  the  planning  and  recon- 
struction of  the  principal  defences  and 
public  buildings  was  due  to  his  initiative. 

The  Porta  Nigra  (see  Frontispiece) 
(Gate  No.  i.  Plan  of  Treves),  is  one  of 
the  best  preserved  among  Roman  fortified 
gateways,  and  it  may  be  worth  while  to 
examine  it  briefiy  as  it  probably  furnishes 
the  best  model  for  reconstructing  in  imagi- 
nation the  now  destroyed  Bridge  Gateway, 
the  Incluta  Porta,  shown  on  the  medallion. 
The  structure  consisted  of  two  fighting 
towers  or  propugnacula  for  the  purposes 
of  defense  connected  by  galleries  over  a 
double  entrance.  The  Incluta  Porta, 
from  the  coin,  appears  to  have  had  but 
one  opening,  closed  by  doors,  doubtless 
of  bronze,  and  it  seems  to  have  had  four 
towers  rounding  outwards  instead  of  two. 

Incluta 
Porta  on  the 
medallion 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

62 

ROMAN  GOLD 

But,  of  course,  it  is  never  safe  to  trust  to 
the  details  given  in  the  die-engraving  of 
an  ancient  coin  representing  an  archi- 
tectural work.  Furthermore,  the  conser- 
vatism innate  in  architectural  construction 
makes  one  suspect  that  the  Incluta  Porta 
was  built  in  about  the  same  way  as  the 
Porta  Nigra  and  other  gateways  seen  on 
coins  of  Anchialos  and  Bizya  in  Thrace, 
Markianopolis,  Nikopolis,  and  TrajanopoHs 
in  Moesia  Inferior  (see  Donaldson’s  Archi- 
tectura  Numismatica  and  B.  Pick’s  Die 
Antiken  Miinzen  Nord-Griechenlands,  Pt.  i. 
Plates  iii  and  xx).  There  were  probably 
just  two  towers  in  the  Incluta  Porta  proper 
like  those  of  the  Porta  Nigra.  The  other 
two  shown  to  right  and  left  as  higher 
towers  in  the  medallion  undoubtedly 
represent  merely  an  attempt  to  show  two 
single  towers  at  distant  points  on  the 
encircling  wall.  The  tops  of  three  more 
appear  on  the  wall  in  the  distance.  The 
slanting  lines  at  the  top  between  inner  and 
outer  towers  reveal  this  attempt  at  per- 
spective. The  die-engraver  has  merely 
tried  to  give  the  effect  of  courses  of  stone 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

1 

63 

blocks  laid  one  above  another;  further 
than  that  there  are  no  indications  of 
windowed  openings  or  stories.  From  the 
description  in  the  Gesta,  however,  and.  the 
designation  of  the  ‘‘Famous  Gateway” 
borne  by  the  Bridge  Gate,  we  should  im- 
agine a structure  more  massive  and  higher 
than  the  Porta  Nigra.  Doubtless,  it  was 
also  more  ornate  than  the  Porta  Nigra  in 
its  original  state,  and  a detail  of  its  orna- 
mentation is  supplied  by  our  medallion 
which  shows  a statue  of  Constantine  above 
the  entrance,  probably  to  be  thought  of 
as  occupying  a niche  just  over  the  doors 
and  far  below  the  tops  of  the  towers. 

SPECIAL  REFERENCES 

*Behr,  Heinrich  von.  Die  Porta  Nigra  in 
Trier,  Zeitschrift  fur  Bauwesen,  Berlin,  1908. 

Blanchet,  a.  Les  Enceintes  Romaines  de  la 
Gaule,  Paris,  1907,  pp.  88-93  and  331. 

Evans,  Sir  A.  J.  Num.  Chron.,  1910,  p. 
103  f. 

Hettner,  F.  Das  rdmische  Trier,  Monat- 
schriftf.  d.  Geschichte  West-deutschlands,  Vol.  VI, 
1880,  p.  345. 

Linde,  P.  A.  Die  Porta  Nigra,  Trier,  1852. 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

64 

ROMAN  GOLD 

Maurice,  Jules.  Numismatique  Constan- 

tinienne  Vol.  I,  p.  476,  No.  IV,  pi.  23,  14,  and 
Vol.  II,  pp.  xx-xlviii. 

*ScHMiDT,  Ch.  W.  Rbmische,  Byzantinische 
und  Germanise  he  Baudenkmale  in  Trier  und 
seiner  Umgebung.  Trier,  1838-1845. 

MEDALLION  OF  VALENTINIANUS  I 

VaLENTINIANUS  I,  364-375  A.D. 

6.  Obv.  D.  N.  VALENTINIANVS  P.  F.  AVG. — 
D{ominus)  n{oster)  Valentinianus  p{ius) 
f{elix)  Aug{ustus).  *'‘Our  Lord,  Valen- 
tinianus,  reverent,  fortunate,  Augustus.” 
Bust  of  the  Emperor  Valentinian  I to 
the  right  wearing  a diadem,  cuirass  and 
military  cloak : border  of  dots. 

Rev.  GLORIA  REiPVBLiCAE,  Gloria  rei 
publicae,  “The  glory  of  the  State.” 
The  Emperor,  diademed  and  wearing 
military  dress  and  cloak,  standing,  head 
to  the  left,  holding  in  his  right  hand  a 
globe  surmounted  by  a figure  of  Victory, 
who  holds  a wreath  in  her  right  hand  and 
a palm  branch  in  her  left  towards  the 
Emperor ; in  his  left  hand  the  Emperor 
supports  a vexillum.  In  the  exergue, 
ANT . — Ant{iochiae) , “ Antioch  ’ ’ : border 
of  dots. 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

65 

Gold  medallion.  Temio  or  triple  soli- 
dus. 21  mm.  13.30  gr.  Brussels  Mu- 
seum (formerly  du  Chastel),  Plate  V, 

Cat.  Montagu  Collection,  Paris,  1896, 
PI.  xxxii,  914;  Gnecchi,  Med.  Rom.  PL  14.  8. 

This  is  the  unique  gold  medallion  of 
Valentinian  I of  which  the  rather  remark- 
able history  has  been  told  in  the  beginning 
of  this  article. 

Valentinian  I was  chosen  Emperor  in 
his  forty-third  year  by  the  officers  of  the 
army  at  Nicaea  in  Bithynia  in  364  a.d., 
and  soon  after  named  his  brother  Valens 
as  colleague  with  him  in  the  Empire  on 
equal  terms.  He  gave  Valens  the  title  of 
Augustus  at  the  outset  and  they  divided 
the  Empire  between  them,  Valentinian 
taking  Italy,  Illyricum,  Spain  and  the 
Gauls,  Britain,  and  Africa,  while  to  Valens 
fell  the  Eastern  half  of  the  Balkan  penin- 
sula, Greece,  Egypt,  Syria,  and  Asia 
Minor  as  far  as  Persia.  As  this  division 
was  made  soon  after  Valentinian ’s  election 
(Ammianus  Marcellinus,  Chaps,  xxv- 
XXX,  makes  it  prett}^  clear  that  A^alen- 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

66 

ROMAN  GOLD 

tinian  was  intimidated  into  naming  a 
co-ruler  from  the  first),  it  may  seem  sur- 
prising to  note  that  the  mint  at  which  our 
medallion  was  issued  is  that  of  Antioch  in 
Syria  which  belonged  within  the  empire  of 
Valens.  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume, 
however,  that  the  medallion  must  therefore 
have  been  struck  within  the  short  period 
when  the  two  brothers  were  passing 
through  the  chief  cities  of  the  district  near 
Nicsea  and  arranging  the  allotment  of  the 
Empire.  For  it  was  customary  for  co- 
emperors as  long  as  they  were  on  friendly 
terms  to  strike  coins  each  in  the  name  of 
the  other  at  mints  over  which  each  ruler 
exercised  direct  control.  Thus  coins  of 
Licinius  were  issued  from  the  London  mint 
which  had  belonged  to  Constantins  Chlorus 
and  passed  directly  into  Constantine’s 
power,  and  coins  of  Constantine  were 
issued  from  the  mint  of  Antioch  which  had 
belonged  to  Licinius  after  the  defeat  of 
Maximinus  I Daza  in  313.  So  too  Valen- 
tinian  and  Valens  issued  coins  for  each 
other  in  mints  outside  their  own  immediate 
personal  control. 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

67 

To  what  period  then  and  to  what  event 
must  the  medallion  be  assigned  ? The 
reverse  type  of  the  victorious  Valentinian 
with  the  inscription  Gloria  Reipuhlicae 
suggests  an  important  military  triumph. 
This,  it  may  be  proposed,  was  in  all  like- 
lihood the  victory  won  at  the  battle  of 
Solicinium  on  the  Neckar  in  368.  At  least, 
this  battle  marks  the  successful  completion 
of  a campaign  against  the  Alemanni  for 
which  Valentinian  prepared  for  two  years. 
Valentinian  had  fallen  ill  in  367  when 
Gratianus  was  made  Augustus  at  the 
tender  age  of  eight,  and  he  wished  to  assure 
the  safety  of  his  Empire  and,  also,  to  add 
military  glory  to  his  son’s  name.  The 
attack  against  the  barbarians  lasted  from 
June  17  to  July  31,  368.  The  victorious 
outcome  of  this  campaign,  well-known  in 
Valentinian’s  military  career,  is  the  one 
event  to  which  we  can  point  as  the  most 
probable  occasion  for  the  issue  of  this 
medallion. 

The  figure  of  Valentinian  I on  this 
medallion  should  be  compared  with  the 
figure  of  Valentinian  on  a silver  disc  in  the 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

68 

ROMAN  GOLD 

Museum  of  Geneva  (Mrs.  A.  Strong, 
Apotheosis  and  After  Life,  PI.  xiii,  2, 
and  F.  de.  Mely,  Monuments  Piot,  igoo, 
(Vol.  VII,  p.  74,  Fig.  2.)  The  Emperor 
is  represented  on  this  disc  as  the  central 
figure  addressing  a group  of  his  soldiers. 
He  holds  in  his  right  hand  a globe  sur- 
mounted by  a figure  of  Victory  who  is 
approaching  him  with  a wreath  and  palm 
branch,  while  his  left  arm  is  resting  upon 
and  supporting  the  vexillum  exactly  as 
on  the  medallion.  The  Emperor  is,  also, 
in  military  dress  but  the  head  is  facing 
forward  and  the  body  is  more  firmly  set 
in  a frontal  pose  than  on  our  medallion. 
Another  difference  is  the  fact  that  the 
Emperor’s  head  is  surrounded  by  a large 
solar  aureole  on  the  silver  disc. 

The  general  similarity  of  the  two  pieces, 
however,  is  sufficient  to  warrant  our 
suggesting  that  both  of  these  small  works 
of  art  may  have  been  inspired  by  a larger 
work  of  art  representing  the  Emperor  as 
victor  after  some  signal  triumph.  The 
disc  is  dated  by  M.  de  Mely  in  the  year 
370,  but  the  reason  for  selecting  this  year 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

69 

is  not  given.  This  corresponds  with  the 
date  which  has  been  here  suggested, 
namely,  the  period  immediately  following 
the  victory  over  the  Alemanni  in  368. 

The  Nature  and  Purpose  of  the 
Roman  Medallion 

Any  one  who  examines  attentively  a 
large  number  of  Roman  medallions  will 
come  to  the  conclusion  now  generally  held 
among  numismatists  that  the  ancient 
medallion  is  not  a medal  in  the  modern 
sense.  According  to  its  fundamental 
nature,  the  medallion  is  a coin.  Whether 
it  circulated  like  a coin  or  not,  it  shows  the 
typical  characteristics  of  a coin.  The 
term  medallion  is  usually  considered  rather 
unfortunate  in  that  it  connotes  the  idea 
of  a medal  and  thus  gives  a wrong  impres- 
sion. On  the  other  hand,  the  long-con- 
tinued use  of  the  word  will  make  it  difficult 
to  oust  it  from  our  numismatic  vocabulary. 
Furthermore,  there  is  no  single  word  which 
can  be  used  as  a substitute.  The  ancients 
had  no  separate  word  to  describe  that  class 

\ 

A N D MONOGRAPHS 

70 

ROMAN  GOLD 

of  coin  issues  in  the  Roman  series  which 
some  modern  writers  very  aptly  term  coin- 
medals, or  medallic  coins,  that  is,  pieces 
of  higher  denomination  than  usual,  mul- 
tiples, whole  or  fractional,  of  the  aureus 
and  solidus  in  gold,  the  denarius  and 
antoninianus  in  silver,  and  of  the  as  in 
bronze.  But  the  word  numisma,  or  no- 
misma,  the  Greek  word  equivalent  to 
nummus  “coin,”  came  in  course  of  time 
to  designate  coins  which  were  out  of  cir- 
culation and  to  be  used  in  poetry  of  coins 
in  general.  In  a passage  in  the  Digest, 
Pomponius  VII,  i,  28,  the  word  is  used 
in  describing  old  coins  : 

Numismata  aurea  vel  argentea  vetera 
quibus  pro  gemmis  uti  solent  — “Ancient 
gold  and  silver  coins  which  they  are 
accustomed  to  use  as  jewelry.” 

This  is  an  interesting  passage  furnish- 
ing ancient  testimony  as  to  the  use  of  coins 
and  medallions  in  jewelry,  although  the 
word  numismata  here  cannot  be  taken  as 
designating  medallions  only,  but  means 
rather  coins  which  were  no  longer  in  circu- 
lation. The  generic  word  forma  combined 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

71 

with  adjectives  derived  from  distributive 
numerals  to  indicate  the  multiple,  formae 
binariae,  ternariae,  etc.,  is  found  in  the  pass- 
age from  the  Life  of  Alexander  Severus 
quoted  at  length  below.  The  word  “ binio  ” 
occurs  in  a description  of  a coin  of  Gal- 
lienus,  and  the  word  “quaternio  ” is  found 
on  a quadruple  antoninianus  of  Valerian 
and  Gallienus  {Rev.  Num.,  1855,  p.  392). 
Thus  there  is  ample  justification  for  the 
terms  binio,  ternio,  quaternio,  quinio, 
senio,  etc. 

The  Roman  medallions,  however,  were 
not  merely  multiple  coins.  If  that  were 
so,  we  should  expect  to  find  them  in  larger 
quantities,  to  see  them  in  proportionate 
numbers  at  different  periods,  whereas  they 
are  scarcer  than  any  other  issues.  For  the 
first  two  centuries  of  the  Empire,  gold  and 
silver  medallions  are  extremely  rare.  Only 
two  gold  medallions  of  the  First  Century 
A.D.  have  come  down  — one  of  Augustus 
found  at  Pompeii  in  1759  and  now  in  the 
Naples  Museum,  and  one-  of  Domitian, 
formerly  in  the  French  collection,  but  now 
lost.  It  is  only  in  the  Third  Century 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

72 

ROMAN  GOLD 

under  Caracalla  and  Elagabalus  that  large 
numbers  of  gold  medallions  appear  to  have 
been  coined.  In  the  Fourth  Century, 
gold  medallions  are  fairly  abundant ; and 
with  this  increase  in  number  comes  also 
an  increase  in  the  size,  for  it  is  only  at  this 
period  that  the  gold  medallion  takes  on 
that  fundamental  quality  of  the  modern 
medal  which  is  an  unrestricted  diameter, 
a feature  which  links  the  Roman  medallion 
in  gold  of  this  period  more  closely  to  the 
modern  medal  than  in  its  origin.  But 
while  the  large  gold  medallions  of  the  Late 
Empire  suggest  the  modern  medal  most 
vividly,  and  have  certainly  this  much  in 
common  with  the  medal,  namely,  a com- 
memorative purpose,  it  is  easy  to  indicate 
the  points  of  difference  between  the  Roman 
medallion  in  general,  and  the  modern 
medal. 

Briefly  stated,  there  is,  first,  the  fact 
that  their  issue  was  entirely  controlled  by 
the  state,  that  is,  imperial  authority. 
This  is  true  also  of  the  bronze  medallions 
struck  under  senatorial  authority  and 
designated  as  senatorial  issues  by  the 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

73 

letters  S.  C.  on  the  reverse,  for  the  senate’s 
power  to  strike  these  pieces  was  delegated 
by  imperial  authority.  No  private  in- 
dividual, or  private  society  or  association 
of  individuals,  could  issue  a medallion  as 
may,  of  course,  be  done  with  a modern 
medal.  Only  the  Emperor,  and  those 
persons  whom  he  designated,  could  be 
represented  on  the  medallions.  No  artist, 
statesman,  general,  or  philosopher  had  this 
privilege.  Secondly,  the  metal  and  the 
weights  of  the  medallion  are  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  standard  existing  for 
the  coinage.  The  silver  and  bronze 
medallions  suffer  the  same  periodical 
decline  and  renewal  in  fineness  of  metal 
as  the  coinage,  and  the  weights  vary  with 
the  rise  and  fall  of  the  weights  of  the  coins. 
Thirdly,  the  restricted  diameter  of  the 
medallion  up  to  a very  late  period  indicates 
the  adherence  to  the  conventional  standard 
of  size  set  by  the  actual  coin  units  of  which 
they  were  the  multiples,  weight  being 
expressed  by  the  thickness  of  the  flan 
(this  refers  chiefly  to  bronze).  Again,  the 
types  are  almost  exclusively  concerned 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

ROMAN  GOLD 

with  the  Emperor,  his  protecting  deities, 
his  conquests,  his  festivals,  the  provisioning 
of  the  city,  the  solidarity  and  loyalty  of  his 
army.  Lastly,  while  the  medallions  do 
not  bear  marks  of  value,  which  is  true 
also  of  coins  with  rare  exceptions,  still 
they  bear  in  the  exergue  mint  marks  at  the 
same  period  at  which  mint  marks  are 
regularly  found  on  coins. 

Turning  to  the  historical  evidence,  we 
find  this  most  convincing.  The  most 
important  literary  text  describing  medal- 
lions in  their  relation  to  coins  is  found  in 
the  passage  (Chapter  39)  in  the  Life  of 
Alexander  Severus  by  Lampridius,  here 
quoted  in  full. 

Vectigalia  publica  in  id  contraxit,  ut, 
qui  decern  aureos  sub  Heliogabalo  prae- 
stiterant,  tertiam  partem  aurei  prae- 
starent,  hoc  est  tricesimam  partem. 
Tuncque  primum  semisses  aureorum 
formati  sunt ; tunc  etiam,  quum  ad 
tertiam  aurei  partem  vectigal  decidisset, 
tremisses ; dicente  Alexandro,  etiam 
quart arios  futures,  quod  minus  non 
posset : quos  quidem  jam  formatos  in 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

75 

moneta  detinuit,  exspectans  ut,  si 
vectigal  contrahere  potuisset,  et  eosdem 
ederet : sed  quum  non  potuisset  per 

publicas  necessitates,  conflari  eos  jussit, 
et  tremisses  tantum  solidosque  formari. 
Formas  binarias,  ternarias  et  quater- 
naries, et  denarias  etiam,  atque  amplius, 
usque  ad  bilibres  quoque  et  centenarias, 
quas  Heliogabalus  invenerat,  resolvi 
praecepit,  neque  in  usu  cuiusquam  ver- 
sari,  atque  ex  eo  his  materiae  nomen 
inditum  est,  quum  diceret  plus  largiendi 
hanc  esse  imperatori  causam,  si,  quum 
multos  solidos  minores  dare  possit,  dans 
decern  vel  amplius  una  forma,  triginta 
et  quinquaginta  et  centum  dare  cogere- 
tur  — “He  lessened  the  public  taxes 
to  this  degree  that  those  who  under 
Elagabalus  had  paid  ten  aurei  should 
pay  a third  of  an  aureus,  namely,  the 
thirtieth  part  of  the  old  tax.  Then,  for 
the  first  time,  half-aurei,  or  semisses, 
were  struck ; and  also  third  aurei,  or 
tremisses,  when  he  had  lowered  the  tax 
to  the  third  of  an  aureus.  He  v/as  also 
intending  to  issue  quart er-aurei,  the 
lowest  tax  possible,  and  these  were  in 
fact  already  struck,  and  Alexander  held 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

?6 

ROMAN  GOLD 

them  in  the  mint  in  the  expectation  that 
if  he  could  reduce  the  tax,  he  could  put 
them  into  circulation.  But  when  he 
was  unable  to  do  so  because  of  public 
necessities,  he  ordered  them  to  be  melted 
down  and  only  tremisses  and  whole 
aurei  to  be  struck.  He  ordered  also  the 
melting  down  of  the  double,  triple,  and 
quadruple  aurei,  and  likewise  the  pieces 
of  ten  aurei  and  more,  even  up  to  the 
two-pound  pieces,  and  also  those  of  one 
hundred  aurei  which  Elagabalus  had 
invented,  and  forbade  that  they  should 
be  used  as  money  (lit.  forbade  that  they 
should  be  found  in  any  one’s  use) . From 
that  time  on,  the  name  of  bullion  was 
given  to  these  pieces.  He  stated  that 
these  pieces  had  compelled  the  Emperor 
to  distribute  largesses  on  a greater  scale 
{i.e.  than  he  wished),  since  in  place  of 
giving  several  aurei  (lit.,  whole  pieces, 
or  units,  solidi)  of  less  value,  he  was 
obliged,  if  he  distributed  pieces  of  ten 
aurei  or  more,  to  give  sums  of  thirty, 
fifty,  and  one  hundred  aurei.” 

It  is  particularly  to  the  sentence  begin- 
ning formas  binarias,  ternarias  et  qiia- 
ternarias,  that  we  wish  to  call  attention. 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

77 

Lampridius  here  states  that  Alexander 
Severus  ordered  the  multiple  aurei,  namely, 
the  double,  triple,  quadruple,  and  more 
aurei,  to  be  melted  down  and  retired  from 
circulation.  The  context  shows  that  these 
multiples  were  hitherto  regarded  as  part 
of  the  regular  currency,  one  of  the  chief 
uses  of  these  larger  denominations  being 
their  distribution  by  the  Emperor  as 
largesses  or  liberalities.  The  command 
that  these  pieces  be  withdrawn  from  cir- 
culation and  be  considered  merely  as 
bullion  is  mentioned  by  Lampridius  in 
immediate  connection  with  the  discussion 
of  new  coin  denominations  — these  were 
the  tremissis,  or  third-aureus,  which  was 
struck  by  Alexander  to  facilitate  payment 
of  taxes,  and  a projected  issue,  the  quarter- 
aureus,  which  was  struck  but  not  issued 
and  subsequently  melted  down.  Lam- 
pridius, who  wrote  about  a century  after 
Alexander,  is  in  error  in  his  first,  and 
incidental,  statement  about  the  divisions 
of  the  aureus,  namely,  that  the  half-aurei, 
semis ses  aureorum,  were  first  issued  under 
Alexander,  for  of  course  we  find  the 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

78 

ROMAN  GOLD 

quinarius  aureus  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Empire.  The  third-aureus,  also,  which 
he  assigns  to  Alexander  (222-235  a.d.), 
as  the  inventor  is,  according  to  numismatic 
evidence,  first  known  under  Valerian  (253- 
260  A.D.).  The  historian  is  probably  led 
to  attribute  the  introduction  of  the  tre- 
missis  to  Alexander  on  account  of  Alex- 
ander’s reform  of  the  taxes  which  might 
naturally  have  called  forth  such  an  issue. 
As  coins  of  this  denomination  are  lacking, 
however,  before  Valerian’s  time,  the  state- 
ment, must  remain  unconfirmed. 

Lampridius  is  at  great  pains  to  depict 
Alexander  in  his  character  as  Severus, 
pointing  out  in  the  following  chapter,  40, 
his  preference  for  extreme  simplicity  in 
dress  and  manners.  It  was  from  motives 
of  economy  that  the  “pieces  of  two,  three, 
four,  ten,  and  more  aurei,  up  to  pieces  of 
two-pounds  and  even  one  hundred-aurei, 
which  Elagabalus  had  invented,”  were 
consigned  to  the  melting  pot.  This 
sentence  is  of  prime  importance,  for  it 
attributes  to  Elagabalus  the  first  issue  of 
medallions  of  phenomenal  weight.  The 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

79 

text  allows  the  interpretation  of  the  clause 
‘‘which  Elagabalus  had  invented”  as 
restricted  to  the  words  immediately  pre- 
ceding, namely,  “the  two-pound  and  loo- 
aurei  pieces.”  Again,  there  are  in  exist- 
ence to-day  medallions  of  the  denomina- 
tions known  as  binios,  ternios,  and  quater- 
nios  from  the  period  preceding  Elagabalus, 
which  confirms  the  above  interpretation. 
But  in  detail  Lampridius  has  fallen  into 
error.  For  in  the  time  of  Alexander 
Severus,  the  aureus  having  a weight  of 
6.54  grams  was  struck  on  the  basis  of  50 
to  a Roman  pound,  6.54X50  = 327.00 
grams.  Hence,  the  bilibres,  or  two-pound 
pieces,  would  be  precisely  pieces  of  100 
aurei,  and  Lampridius’  phrase  usque  ad 
bilibres  quoque  et  centenarias,  “even  up 
to  the  two-pound  pieces,  and  also  those 
of  100  aurei,”  makes  nonsense.  Probably 
the  writer  may  have  been  thinking  of 
pieces  of  50  and  100  aurei  which  would  be 
pound  and  two-pound  pieces  (327  grams 
and  654  grams).  M.  Babelon  remarks 
that  the  formae  bilibres  and  the  formae 
centenariae  are  equivalent  expressions 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

8o 

ROMAN  GOLD 

{Traits  des  Monn.  Gr.  et  Rom.  R p.  529). 
Kenner  {op.  cit.,  pp.  23  and  144)  emends 
the  text  to  read  usque  ad  lihrales  quoque  et 
centenarias  — “up  to  pound  pieces  and 
those  of  loo-aurei”,  which  gives  the 
required  sense  although  probably  not  the 
original  words. 

It  is  interesting  to  consider  the  exact 
words  used  for  the  acts  of  demonetization 
attributed  by  Lampridius  to  Alexander. 
Of  the  projected  quarter-aurei  pieces,  he 
says  conjiari  eos  iussit  — “he  ordered 
them  to  be  melted  down”;  but  of  the 
multiple  aurei  which  Alexander  wished  to 
withdraw  from  actual  use,  he  says  ^‘Resolvi 
praecepit  neque  in  usu  cuiusquam  versari, 
atque  ex  eo  his  materiae  nomen  inditum 
est”  — “He  ordered  them  to  be  melted 
down  and  not  to  be  found  in  anyone’s 
possession  or  use;  and  from  that  time 
on  the  name  of  bullion  was  given  to  these 
pieces”  — that  is  to  say,  the  command  was 
to  melt  down  these  pieces  in  due  course 
as  they  were  gathered  into  the  treasury 
or  mint,  and  meantime  they  were  not  to 
be  circulated  as  currency  but  as  mere  gold 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

81 

bullion;  the  second  part  of  the  decree 
working  immediately  to  restrict  the  power 
of  legal  tender  which  these  pieces  had 
formerly  possessed.  Such  an  act  would 
not  have  prevented  a large  number  of  the 
medallions  from  being  retained  as  souve- 
nirs, and  encased  in  frames  and  worn  as 
jewelry,  which  was  commonly  done  in 
the  Fifth  and  Sixth  Centuries,  a.d. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  fate  of  the 
large  medallions  invented  by  Elagabalus 
— whether  destroyed  as  the  result  of  this 
decree,  or  in  later  times,  but  one  gold 
medallion  of  this  Emperor  exists  to-day, 
a binio  (Gnecchi,  PL  I,  7).  Of  Alexander 
Severus,  a binio  (Cohen,  267)  of  the  year 
225,  and  an  octuple  piece  or  double  qua- 
ternio  (Cohen,  406)  of  the  year  230  (the 
Decennalia)  are  known.  Thus,  Alexander 
appeared  to  have  struck  multiple  aurei, 
but  perhaps  they  were  previous  to  his  act 
of  demonetization.  The  formation  of 
multiples  in  gold,  to  judge  from  what  is 
extant  and  the  literary  testimony,  was  an 
arbitrary  matter  resting  with  the  Emperor 
and  not  part  of  the  regular  currency 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

82 

ROMAN  GOLD 

system.  Official  and  unofficial  melting 
down  in  antiquity  and  later,  accounts  for 
most  of  the  present  dearth  of  examples. 

The  striking  of  medallions  of  unusual 
dimensions  did  nqt  become  a common 
imperial  custom  until  the  Fourth  and, 
particularly,  the  Fifth  and  Sixth  Centuries, 
when  they  attained  a really  remarkable 
size.  The  famous  medallion  of  Justinian  I 
(527-565  A.D.)  now  lost,  discovered  at 
Caesarea  in  Cappadocia  in  1751,  {Brit. 
Mus.  Cat.  of  Byzantine  Coins,  p.  25,  frontis- 
piece), weighed  162.5  gr.  equal  to  36  solid! 
or  half  a Roman  pound  of  72  solidi,  and 
measured  85  mm.  in  diameter.  Similarly, 
a medallion  of  Valens  (364-378  a.d)  with 
the  reverse  Gloria  Romanoru?n  (Kubitschek, 
Ausgewdhlte  Romische  Medaillons,  356) 
having  a narrow  frame  but  no  ring  for 
suspension  weighs  about  the  same,  178.9 
gr.  The  gold  framed  medallion  of  Con- 
stantins II  (323-361  A.D.)  (Kubitschek, 
Ausgewdhlte  Romische  Medaillons,  No.  300), 
with  the  reverse  Gaudium  Romanorum, 
cannot  now  be  weighed  very  exactly  on 
account  of  its  wide  frame.  The  total 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS' 

83 

weight  is  256.9  gr.  and  the  diameter 
93  mm. ; the  medallion,  itself,  however 
measures  71  mm. 

Another  medallion,  like  the  two  pre- 
ceding pieces  also  in  the  Vienna  Museum, 
surpasses  all  others  known  to-day  in 
weight.  It  has  a narrow  gold  frame  and 
perforated  attachment  with  a total  dia- 
meter of  92  mm.  and  weight  of  412.72  gr. 
This  is  the  piece  bearing  the  bust  of  Valens 
and  Gloria  Romanorum  reverse.  Dis- 
counting the  frame,  the  medallion  proper 
must  be  equivalent  to  90  solidi  or  more, 
at  4.50  gr.  each.  This  piece  gives  us  a 
vivid  idea  of  the  pound  and  two-pound 
pieces  of  Elagabalus  noted  by  Lampridius, 
for  it  weighs  more  than  the  Roman  pound 
of  327  gr.,  and  of  the  medallions  described 
by  Gregory  of  Tours  {Hist.  Franc.  Ch.  vi,  2) 
as  follow^s : 

Aureos  etiam  singularium  librarum 
pondere  quos  imperator  misit,  ostendit, 
habentes  ab  una  parte  iconam.  impera- 
toris  pictam,  et  scriptum  in  circulo : 
TIBERII  CONSTANTINI  PERPETUI  AUGUSTI  ; 
ab  alia  vero  parte  habentes  quadrigam 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

84 

ROMAN  GOLD 

et  ascensorem  continentesque  scriptum : 
GLORIA  ROMANORUM.  “ He  showed  gold 
coins  of  the  weight  of  a pound  each  which 
the  Emperor  had  sent,  having  on  one 
side  the  portrait  of  the  Emperor  with  the 
inscription  around  it  ‘of  Tiberius  Con- 
st antinus,  forever  Augustus,’  and  on 
the  other  side,  a quadriga  and  charioteer 
with  the  inscription  Gloria  Romanorum” 

The  simple  word  aurei  (gold  coins)  is 
used  here  of  these  medallions,  striking 
proof  that  the  ancients  had  no  distinct  or 
separate  word  for  medallion.  These  very 
large  medallions  were,  however,  quite 
exceptional.  According  to  the  literary 
testimony,  as  we  have  seen,  this  species 
of  gold  medallion  began  under  Elagabalus, 
and,  according  to  the  existing  specimens, 
these  large  pieces  are  found  chiefly  during 
the  reign  of  Constantins  II  and  Valens. 
But  the  commonest  denominations  are 
the  binios,  double  aurei  and  solidi,  the 
ternios,  quaternios,  quinios,  and  senios. 
The  octuple  solidus  or  double  quaternio 
is  rarely  found. 

The  Roman  gold  medallion,  as  has  been 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

8s 

shown,  occupies  a place  intermediate 
between  the  coin  and  the  medal.  It  was, 
in  fact,  a coin  in  all  its  external  aspects, 
weight,  metal,  and  types,  but  it  certainly 
was  not  struck  primarily  for  circulation, 
although  no  doubt  capable  of  circulating 
as  currency.  The  same  fundamental 
monetary  character  may  be  established  in 
the  case  of  the  silver  and  bronze  medallions, 
although  these  may  have  been  more  easily 
absorbed  into  the  regular  currency,  and 
have  actually  seen  more  circulation  than 
the  gold.  The  two  passages  cited  above 

(1)  Lampridius  (ist  third  of  the  Fourth 
Century)  Vita  Alexandri  Severi,  Ch.  39, 

(2)  Gregory  of  Tours  (Sixth  Century) 
Hist.  Franc.  VI,  2,  indicate  clearly  the 
donative  character  of  the  gold  medallion. 
We  have,  also,  a decree  of  the  Emperors 
Theodosius  and  Valentinian  of  the  year 
348  A.D.  (Cod.  Theod.  15.  9.  i)  which  for- 
bade the  actors  from  distributing  “heavier 
silver  coins  than  those  weighing  one- 
sixtieth  of  a pound”  (5.45  gr.).  Such 
“heavier  silver  coins”  which  the  actors 
had  formerly  used  must  have  been  in  fact 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

86 

ROMAN  GOLD 

silver  medallions,  and  the  passage  quoted 
confirmed  the  donative  nature  of  these 
pieces. 

The  circumstance  that  many  of  the 
largest  medallions  have  come  down  to  us 
encased  in  ornamental  frames  or  equipped 
with  rings  for  suspension,  has  naturally 
tended  to  support  the  argument  as  to  the 
medallic  nature  of  these  pieces.  Coins, 
however,  are  just  as  frequently  found  set 
in  gold  to  be  worn  as  necklaces,  bracelets, 
etc.  Several  large  finds  have  yielded 
most  remarkable  treasures  of  this  sort. 
One  find  made  in  Hungary,  near  Szilagy- 
Somlyo,  in  1797,  brought  to  light  as  many 
as  24  Roman  medallions.  In  this  hoard 
were  contained  the  unusually  large  framed 
medallions  of  the  Vienna  Numismatic 
Collection  with  the  heads  of  Constantins 
II,  Valens  and  Gratianus. 

A second  large  find  of  gold  jewelry, 
including  pieces  set  with  coins  and  medal- 
lions, unearthed  in  1909  in  Egypt  (Den- 
nison, “A  Gold  Treasure  from  Egypt”) 
is  of  great  interest  in  this  connection,  the 
objects  in  this  find  ranging  in  date  from 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

87 

the  Third  to  the  Sixth  Century ; the 
majority,  however,  belonged  to  the  latter 
century.  The  goldsmith’s  work  on  the 
pectorals  and  medallions  is  regarded  as  of 
Egyptian  or  Syrian  origin,  and  differs 
decidedly  from  the  style  of  work  on  the 
Vienna  medallions  which  were  found  in 
Hungary.  The  frames  of  the  medallions 
from  Hungary  are  characterized  by  solid 
decorative  bands,  whereas  those  from  the 
Egyptian  find  are  of  more  delicate  work- 
manship with  wire  coils,  chiselled  work, 
raised  spirals,  and,  very  frequently,  open- 
work designs. 

From  the  find  place  of  the  Vienna  medal- 
lions (Szilagy-Somlyo  in  Hungary,  which 
was  in  the  ancient  province  of  Dacia  which 
became  lost  to  the  Roman  Empire  in  274) ' 
and  from  the  style  of  art  of  their. frames, 
Kenner  has  inferred  that  they  were  made 
into  objects  of  jewelry  outside  the  Ro- 
man Empire  and  were  worn  particularly 
by  barbarian  chieftains  who  received  them 
as  gifts  from  the  princes  of  the  Empire. 
The  recent  find  in  Egypt  disposes  of  this 
theory  as  applying  to  all  medallions  of  this 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

88 

ROMAN  GOLD 

class  for  the  objects  in  it  were  produced 
within  the  bounds  of  the  Empire.  Fur- 
thermore, we  have  the  statement  of  Pom- 
ponius  (Dig.  VII,  i.  28)  above  quoted  to  the 
effect  that  the  ancients  were  accustomed  to 
wear  old  gold  and  silver  coins  as  jewelry. 
And  Dennison  points  out  that  the  Sixth 
Century  to  which  he  assigns  the  large 
medallion  of  Theodosius  I from  the 
Egyptian  treasure  (No.  2 in  the  Freer 
Collection,  the  only  coin-medallion  proper, 
i.e.  struck  piece  in  the  find),  was  one  of 
great  luxury  in  which  elaborate  jewelled 
ornaments  were  worn  by  the  wealthy 
people  of  the  time.  The  custom  is  exactly 
parallel  with  the  modern  practice  of 
wearing  coins  as  brooches  and  as  pendants. 
Just  as  imitative  jewelry  is  designed  from 
models,  so  the  ancients  wore  jewelled 
pieces  with  medallions  cast  or  repoussee 
in  gold  to  imitate  the  originals  as,  for 
example,  those  in  the  Morgan  and  Freer 
pectorals  in  the  treasure  from  Egypt. 
In  general,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the 
settings,  if  not  in  every  case  strictly  con- 
temporaneous, are  not  very  far  removed 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 


MEDALLIONS 

89 

from  the  periods  of  the  medallions  them- 
selves — that  is  to  say,  they  belong  to 
the  late  Roman  period. 

A third  find  of  gold  medallions  encased 
in  frames  is  that  made  at  Velp,  in  Gelder- 
land,  Holland,  in  1715,  which  contained 
a large  gold  necklace  to  which  were 
attached  five  large  medallions  of  Honorius 
and  Galla  Placidia.  The  examples  of  these 
medallions  in  the  Paris  collection  are 
from  this  find.  The  find  place  which  is 
outside  the  bounds  of  the  Roman  Empire 
at  the  time  of  Constantine  is  of  interest  in 
connection  with  the  find  in  Hungary. 
A large  proportion  of  the  framed  medal- 
lions shown  in  Gnecchi’s  corpus  came 
from  the  Szilagy-Somlyo  find,  so  that  it 
would  appear  that  of  all  the  framed  pieces 
known  the  majority  come  from  find  spots 
outside  the  Roman  Empire.  Thus 
Kenner’s  contention  that  these  medallions 
were  presentation  pieces  offered  to  chief- 
tains of  barbarous  tribes  by  the  Emperors 
is  materially  strengthened. 

0.  Seeck  and  Fr.  Kenner  have  both  con- 
tributed admirable  analyses  of  the  purposes 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

90 

ROMAN  GOLD 

' 

for  which  the  Roman  medallion  was 
created.  The  gold  medallion  was  a form 
of  money  suited  to  the  high  position  of  the 
Augustus  of  which  the  Emperor  made  use 
for  the  purpose  of  personal  commemora- 
tion. The  medallions  must  not  be  thought 
of  as  gifts  or  largesses  handed  out  to  the 
people  or  soldiers.  Their  scarcity  points 
rather  to  a restricted  circle  of  privileged 
political  and  social  acquaintances  of  the 
Emperor.  From  the  First  Century  on, 
the  houses  of  distinguished  men  were 
visited  by  a large  number  of  clients  who 
were  entertained  on  public  occasions  by 
their  patrons.  At  first,  the  entertainment 
took  the  form  of  a meal,  but  later  a definite 
sum  of  money,  the  sportula,  was  given  as 
the  equivalent  of  the  chief  meal  of  the  day. 
and  thus  the  entertainment  of  these  some- 
what troublesome  guests  was  compounded. 
Such  sportulae  were  presented  on  the 
birthday  of  the  patron,  his  entry  into  a 
consulship,  a marriage  anniversary,  and 
other  festival  occasions.  Sportulae,  fur- 
thermore, were  given  to  those  who  dedi- 
cated a public  building  and  so  on,  and 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

91 

were  distributed  among  guests  at  a social 
entertainment.  New  Year’s  gifts  also 
were  quite  general,  and  the  Emperors 
shared  in  the  custom  in  that  they  received 
and  demanded  gifts  of  money  at  the 
Salutatio.  A letter  by  Symmachus  has 
come  down  to  us  in  which  upon  entry  into 
his  consulate,  he  accompanied  the  invita- 
tion with  a gold  solidus.  There  are 
several  other  letters  which  speak  of  the 
gift  of  two  solidi  on  the  occasion  of  the 
marriage  of  his  son.  Presents  of  money 
could  be  offered,  also,  to  men  of  rank  and 
influence.  The  sportula  in  the  beginning 
was  a very  modest  sum  of  money,  just 
sufficient  to  buy  with  it  a mid-day  meal. 
In  the  Fourth  Century  it  had  developed 
into  a very  considerable  gift,  and  this 
development  started  even  in  the  Third 
Century.  In  harmony  with  this,  the  gold 
medallions  are  very  scarce  and  are  almost 
entirely  lacking  in  the  first  two  centuries 
of  the  Empire,  and  silver  also  are  extremely 
scarce. 

The  types  of  the  medallions  reflect  the 
motive  which  led  to  their  issue,  games. 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

92 

ROMAN  GOLD 

triumphal  processions,  the  first  arrival  in 
the  city,  the  departure  for  war,  the  Vota 
sacrifices  or  Jubilee  of  the  reign,  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Caesar  as  princeps  inven- 
tutis,  the  marriage  of  the  same,  the  birth 
of  his  children,  the  dedication  of  a temple, 
the  consecratio,  — these  are  the  medallion 
types  most  commonly  chosen. 

The  medallion  was  well  suited  to  com- 
memorate the  fame  and  prestige  of  the 
Emperor’s  family.  The  announcement  of 
the  appointment  of  a son  to  the  rank  of 
Caesar,  or  of  his  wife  to  that  of  Augusta, 
had  as  object  the  increase  of  public  inter- 
est in  the  Emperor’s  household.  Un- 

doubtedly, there  was  complete  distinction 
of  person  according  to  the  official  position 
and  political  importance  of  the  recipient. 
An  example  has  been  given  already  under 
medallion.  No.  3,  the  Equis  Romanus 
type,  of  an  apparently  intentional  grada- 
tion of  weights.  Other  cases  may  be  cited 
in  which  a given  type  was  struck  in<  a 
series  of  different  weights. 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

93 

GENERAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Roman  Medallions 

Babelon,  Ernest.  *Traite  des  Monnaies 
grecques  et  romaines  I^  pp.  652-670.  La  Trou- 
vaille de  Helleville  (Manche)  en  1780.  Rev. 
Num.  1906,  pp.  160-189.  PI.  vii-ix.  Deux 
Medallions  disparus  de  Domitien  et  Justinien. 
Ibid.,  1899,  pp.  1-8. 

Blanchet,  J.  Adrien.  Essais  Monetaires 
Romains.  Rev.  Num.,  1896,  pp.  231-239.  Rev. 
Num.,  1901.  Proces-verbeaux,  pp.  vii-ix. 

Cesano.  L.  Di  un  nuovo  medaglione  aureo 
di  Costantino  I e del  “ princeps  iuventutis.” 
Rassegna  Num.,  VIII,  1911.  33-92. 

H.  Cohen  et  F.  Feuardent.  Description 
Historique  des  Monnaies  frappees  sous  I’Empire 
Romain  communement  appelees  Medailles  Im- 
periales,  1880-1896,  8 vols. 

Dennison,  Walter.  *A  Gold  Treasure  of  the 
Late  Roman  Period  from  Egypt.  Studies  in 
East  Christian  and  Roman  Art,  University  of 
Michigan  Studies,  Humanistic.  Series,  Vol.  XII, 
New  York,  1918. 

Evans,  Sir  A.  J.  Notes  on  some  Roman 
Imperial  “Medallions”  and  Coins:  Clodius 

Albinus ; Diocletian ; Constantine  the  Great ; 
Gratian.  Num.  Chron.,  1910,  pp.  97-109. 

Evans,  Sir  John.  On  three  Roman  Medal- 
lions of  Postumus,  Commodus,  and  Probus. 
Num.  Chron.,  1877,  pp.  334-339.  On  some  .Rare 

1 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

I 


94 

ROMAN  GOLD 

or  Unpublished  Roman  Medallions.  Ibid.,  1891, 
pp.  152-160.  On  some  Rare  or  Unpublished 
Roman  Medallions.  Ibid.,  1896,  pp.  40-52. 

Foville,  Jean  de.  Deux  Medaillons  d’ Ar- 
gent Remains  recemment  acquis  par  le  cabinet 
des  Medailles.  Rev.  Num.,  1903,  pp.  42-52. 

Friedlaender,  J.  Die  auf  die  Griindung  von 
Constantinopel  gepragte  Denkmunze.  Zeit.  f. 
Num.,  1876,  pp.  125-128. 

Froehner,  W.  *Les  Medaillons  de  I’Empire 
Remain.  Paris,  1878. 

Gnecchi,  Fr.  **I  Medaglioni  Romani,  3 vols. 
Milan,  1912.  Ancora  sulla  teoria  monetaria 

dei  medaglioni  di  bronze.  Riv.  Ital.  Num. 
Ibid.,  1900,  pp.  257—265.  Interne  ai  meda- 
glioni. Ibid.,  1906,  pp.  295-310.  La  Medaglia 
presso  i Romani.  Ibid.,  1911,  pp.  11-18. 
Medaglione  ? Osservazioni  a proposito  di  un 
Bronze  colle  effigie  di  Marc’Aurelio  e Lucio 
Vero.  Ibid.,  1890,  pp.  495-506.  Medaglioni 
Senator!  e bronzi  eccedenti.  Ibid.,  1909,  pp. 
343-364.  Nmnismata  maximi  moduli ; ricerche 
interne  alle  officine  che  coniarono  medaglione  e 
intorno  all’  uso  originario  di  questi.  Ibid.,  1896, 
pp.  309-324.  Medaglione  di  bronzo  di  Mari- 
niana.  Ibid.,  1913,  pp.  13-16.  11  Medaglione 

Senatorio,  saggio  di  una  prima  serie.  Ibid., 
1892,  pp.  291-295.  I Medaglioni  ex-Vaticani. 
Ibid.,  1905,  pp.  1-42. 

Grueber,  H.  a.  *Roman  Medallions  in  the 
British  Musetun,  London,  1874. 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

95 

Kenner,  Fr.  **Derromische  Medaillon.  Nu- 
mismatische  Zeitschrift,  1887,  pp.  1-173  (partial 
translation  in  the  Riv.  Ital.  Num.,  1889,  pp 
83-- 1 02,  243-286).  Bronzemedaillon  der  Kaiserin 
Faustina.  Num.  Zeit.,  1879,  pp.  227-229. 
Die  aufwartssehenden  Bildnisse  Constantin  des 
Grossen  und  seiner  Sohne.  Ibid.,  1880,  pp.  74- 
107.  Silbermedaillon  der  Sammlung  G.  Weifert 
in  Belgrad.  Ibid.,  1895,  pp.  107-108. 

Kubitschek,  W.  *Ausgewahlte  romische 
Medaillons  der  K.  Miinzensammlung  in  Wien. 
Vienna,  1909. 

L.  Laffranchi  e P.  Monti.  Constantino 
11  Augusto.  Riv.  Ital.  Num.,  1905,  pp.  389- 
399- 

Lagoy,  Marquis  de.  Medaillon  d’ Argent 
(Billon)  de  Valerien  et  de  Gallien.  Rev.  Num., 
1855.  PP-  392-395- 

Lenormant,  Francois.  Sur  le  Poids  des 
Medaillons  d’or  Imperiaux,  Rev.  Num.,  1867, 
pp.  1 27-134. 

Longperier,  a.  de.  Sur  un  Medaillon  de 
Constantin  le  Grand,  Rev.  Num.,  1864,  pp. 
1 1 2— 1 1 7.  Observations  sur  trois  Medaillons 
Romains.  Rev.  Num.,  1865.  pp.  401— 417. 

Macdonald,  George.  Roman  Medallions  in 
the  Hunterian  Collection.  Num.  Chron.,  1906, 
pp.  93-126. 

Madden,  F.  W,  On  an  Unpublished  Gold 
Medallion  of  Constantine  II,  Num.  Chron.  1865, 
pp.  347-350. 

1 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

q6 

ROMAN  GOLD 

Maurice,  Jules.  Nmnismatique  Constan- 
tinienne,  3 vols.  Paris,  1908-1912. 

Mowat,  Robert.  Contributions  a la  Theorie 
des  Medaillons  de  Bronze  Romains.  (Fabrica- 
tion des  medaillons  a deux  metaux.)  Riv.  Ital. 
Num.,  1911,  pp.  165-184. 

Pansa,  Giovanni  e Gnecchi,  Fr.  Questioni 
Numismatiche : I.  L’uso  decorativo  dei- meda- 
glioni  romani.  II.  I bronzi  unilateral!  ed  il 
principio  economico  della  divisione  del  lavoro 
applicato  alle  monete.  Riv.  Ital.  Num.,  1907, 
pp.  11-47. 

Quilling,  Dr.  F.  Ausgewahlte  romische 
Miinzen  und  Medaillons  der  stadtischen  Miinz- 
sammlung  in  Frankfurt  a.  M.  Zeit.  f.  Num., 
1897,  pp.  201-218,  PI.  vii. 

Roman,  J.  De  I’Organisation  Militaire  de 
r Empire  Remain  et  des  Medailles  Legion- 
naires, Annuaire  de  Num.  1867,  pp.  64-126, 
1868,  pp.  285-287. 

Sallet,  Alfred  von.  Der  Equis  Romanus 
auf  Goldmedaillons  Constantins  des  Grossen. 
Zeit.  f.  Num.,  1876,  pp.  129-131. 

ScHLOSSER,  J.  VON.  *Die  altesten  Medaillen 
und  die  Antike.  Jahrbuch  der  kunst-historis- 
chen  Sammlungen  des  Allerhochsten  Kaiser- 
hauses,  Vol.  xviii,  1897,  p.  65. 

Seeck,  0.  *Zu  den  Festmiinzen  Constantins 
und  seiner  Familie.  Z.  f.  N.,  1898,  pp.  17-65. 

Serafini,  C.  Medaglioni  Capitolini.  Riv. 
Ital.  Num.,  1908,  pp.  245-253. 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

97 

SouTZO,  M.  C.  Etude  sur  les  Monnaies  Im- 
periales  Romaines.  Rev.  Num.,  1899,  pp.  16-17. 
Un  nouveau  M6daillon  en  or  de  Constantin. 
Rev.  Num.,  1903,  pp.  429-432. 

Van  Kerkwijk,  A.  0.  Les  Medallions  Ro- 
mains  en  Or  de  la  Trouvaille  de  Velp  en  1715, 
Memoires  du  Congres  International  de  Numis- 
matique,  Brussels,  1910. 

Greek  Medallions 

Babelon,  E.  Quatre  Medallions  de  Bronze 
d’Asie  Mineure.  Rev.  Num.,  1891,  pp.  26-39. 

Dieudonne,  a.  Medallions  de  Bronze  de 
la  Lydie.  Rev.  Num.,  1900,  pp.  31-35. 

Dressel,  H.  Fiinf  Goldmedaillons  aus  dem 
Funde  von  Abukir.  Abhandlungen  der  konigl. 
Preuss.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften,  1906, 
PI.  I-IV. 

Evans,  Sir  Arthur  J.  Syracusan  “Medal- 
lions ’’  and  their  Engravers  in  the  Light  of 
Recent  Finds.  Num.  Chron.,  1891,  pp.  205-376. 

Longperier,  a.  de.  Tresor  de  Tarse.  Rev. 
Num.,  1868,  pp.  309-336,  PI.  x-xiii. 

Longperier,  A.  de.  Pelops  et  Hippodamie, 
Medallion  de  Smyrne,  Rev.  Num.,  1874-1877. 
Vol.  XV,  pp.  117-123. 

Mowat,  R.  Les  Medallions  Grecs  du  Tresor 
de  Tarse.  Rev.  Num.,  1903,  pp.  1-30,  PL  i-iv. 

Tourneur,  V.  Zeus  et  Heracles  a Perinthe, 
apropos  de  deux  Medallions  greco-romains. 
Rev.  Beige  Num.,  1920,  pp.  105— 109. 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

98 

ROMAN  GOLD 

NOTES 

^ The  institution  of  the  Decennial  games  and 
the  Vota  goes  back  to  the  early  period  of  the 
Empire  (cf.  Eckhel,  Doctrina  Numorum  Ve- 
terum,  Vol.  viii,  Ch.  xiv,  De  numis  votorum). 
although  mention  of  them  occurs  more  fre- 
quently in  the  days  of  the  declining  Empire, 
Augustus,  in  order  to  avoid  the  suspicion  of 
assuming  royal  power,  undertook  the  imperium 
or  supreme  control  over  his  own  provinces,  i.e. 
the  non-senatorial,  for  a period  of  ten  years, 
promising  to  pacify  them  completely  within 
that  time.  When  the  first  decade  had  elapsed, 
he  renewed  his  imperium  for  five  years,  and 
then  again  for  five  and  later  ten  years  and  so 
on.  The  following  emperors,  although  receiv- 
ing the  imperium  for  life,  maintained  the 
custom  of  periodical  games  and  prayers  for 
the  happy  conclusion  of  the  various  periods 
and  auspicious  anticipation  of  the  ensuing 
interval. 

2 Maurice,  Num.  Constantin..,  Vol.  I,  p.  cxl, 
p.  467,  and  Vol.  Ill,  p.  51. 

3 Five  gold  medallions  are  known  which  were 
struck  in  the  name  of  Constantine  II  to  com- 
memorate the  Decennial  celebration  of  326-327 
(Seeck,  Zeit.  f.  Num.,  1898). 

^ On  this  whole  vexed  question,  see  Maurice, 
op.  cit.  Vol.  I,  pp.  468-469.  Compare  also  Mau- 
rice, op.  cit.  Vol.  II,  pp.  408,  410,  where  it  is 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

99 

demonstrated  that  the  issues  of  Constantius  II, 
who  became  Caesar  on  Nov.  8,  324,  showing 
the  same  type  of  uplifted  head  (as  on  the  coin 
of  Crispus,  Cohen,  59)  struck  at  the  mint  of 
Tarragona,  cannot  be  later  than  the  end  of 
326,  when  this  mint  was  closed;  nor  earlier 
than  November,  324,  when  Constantius  II  was 
elevated  to  the  rank  of  Caesar.  In  the  natural 
course  of  events,  Constantine  the  Great  prob- 
ably ordered  his  portrait,  as  described  by 
Eusebius,  to  be  placed  upon  his  own  medallions 
issued  for  his  Vicennial  celebrations,  325  and 
326;  and  thereafter,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
Decennial  celebration  of  the  Caesars  in  326,  to 
be  placed  upon  the  coinages  of  the  Caesars, 
Crispus,  Constantine  Junior,  and  Constantius  II. 
The  solidi  as  well  as  the  multiple  issues  were 
probably  distributed  as  sportulae  to  the  im- 
portant personages  of  the  Empire,  and  to  the 
chiefs  of  foreign  states  which  sent  delegations 
to  congratulate  the  Emperor  on  the  anniver- 
sary. 

® After  the  argument  establishing  the  Porta 
Incluta  as  the  gateway  represented  on  the 
medallion  had  been  worked  out,  the  writer’s 
attention  was  called  to  A.  Blanchet’s  book  on 
the  Roman  walled  towns  in  Gaul  (see  Special 
References).  M.  Blanchet  begins  (p.  89)  with 
a description  of  two  gateways  of  which  remains 
are  still  in  situ.  No.  i,  the  Porta  Nigra,  and 
No.  2,  the  Porta  Mediana,  whose  ground  plan 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

lOO 

ROMAN  GOLD 

is  about  the  same  as  that  of  the  Porta  Nigra, 
except  that  the  bases  of  the  towers  are  square 
instead  of  round.  In  a footnote,  p.  92  (2),  the 
author  enquires  whether  this  second  gateway 
may  not  have  been  the  Porta  Mediana  noted 
in  a Latin  text  of  853  a.d.  After  describing 
gate  No.  3,  the  gate  of  the  amphitheatre,  Blan- 
chet jrcontinued,  “It  is  admitted  that  a fourth 
gate  lay  opposite  to  this  near  the  site  of  the 
Moselle  bridge.”  In  a footnote,  p.  92  (3),  he 
adds,  “Later  on  I shall  revert  to  a gold  coin 
which  probably  represents  this  gate.”  On  p. 
331,  after  enumerating  various  instances  of 
coins  representing  45  gateways,  Blanchet  con- 
tinues, “ Consequently  certain  exceptional  pieces 
perhaps  allude  to  particular  constructions  such 
as  the  double  solidus  of  Constantine  the  First, 
306-337,  struck  at  Treves,  which  represents  not 
the  gate  alone,  as  has  often  been  said,  but  the 
walled  enclosure  of  Treves  flanked  by  seven 
towers  and  fortified,  with  a double  gate ; in 
front  is  the  Moselle  and  a bridge.  Above  the 
gate  is  the  statue  of  the  Emperor ; to  right  and 
to  left  are  crouching  prisoners  (PI.  xxi.  Fig.  3). 
One  cannot  refrain  from  connecting  this  small 
coin  with  a passage  in  the  panegyric  of  Con- 
stantine which  mentions  this  Emperor’s  build- 
ing activity.”  Note  (4)  adds,  “The  gate  repre- 
sented is  facing  the  Moselle  on  the  west  of  the 
city.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  the  Porta  Nigra 
which  is  on  the  north  side  and  far  from  the 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

lOI 

river.  One  must  bear  in  mind  artists’  conven- 
tions, so  important  in  ancient  art,  in  regard  to 
these  representations  on  coins ; thus  the  great 
enclosure  at  Treves  had  more  than  seven 
towers.”  Note  (5)  to  p.  331,  quotes  a passage 
in  the  Incerti  Panegyr.  Vil,  22  (edition  Baehrens 
p.  178)  : “ ita  cunctis  moenibus  resurgentem.” 

Putting  all  these  references  together,  one 
may  infer  that  Blanchet  wished  to  identify 
the  Treves  gate  on  the  medallion  with  the 
Bridge  gate.  The  important  evidence  supplied 
by  the  Gesta  Trevirorum,  and  the  evidence 
derived  from  the  statements  of  contemporaries 
of  Constantine  as  to  his  architectural  construc- 
tions at  Treves  were,  however,  lacking,  so  that 
Blanchet  did  not  bring  out  strongly  the  iden- 
tification of  the  gate  as  the  Porta  Incluta. 

® In  tracing  the  origin  of  the  statement  that 
the  gate  on  the  medallion  should  be  identified 
with  the  Porta  Alba,  a short  article  by  A.  de 
Longperier  in  the  Rev.  Num.,  1864,  on  this 
same  medallion  was  discovered  (see  Special 
References).  M.  de  Longperier  rejected  the 
identification  of  the  gate  with  the  Porta  Nigra 
on  the  ground  that,  since  the  excavations,  the 
gateway  showed  two  large  arches  like  the  arch 
of  Augustus  at  Nimes.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
author  does  not  accept  the  identification  with 
the  Porta  Alba,  which  gate  is  represented  on 
the  coinage  of  the  archbishops,  Dietrich  965- 
977,  and  Ludolf  994-1008,  of  which  the  latter 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

102 

ROMAN  GOLD 

bears  the  inscription  porta  alba.  Quoting 
from  the  Antiquities  of  Treves  by  Brower  et 
Masen,  “ Antiquitatum  etAnnalium  Trevirensium 
libri  XXV  ” Liege,  1670,  the  author  interest- 
ingly enough  concludes  that  the  gate  on  the 
medallion  must  certainly  be  identified  with 
the  fourth  gateway  mentioned  by  these 
writers,  namely,  the  Porta  Inclyta  — the  very 
conclusion  which  we  had  reached  from  quite 
independent  sources.  Doubtless,  these  seven- 
teenth-century writers  whom  Longperier  con- 
sulted derived  their  information  from  the  Gesta 
Trevirorum,  as  is  quite  apparent  from  the 
quotation  cited  {pp.  cit.  p.  98)  : 

“Quarta  occidentem  versus  ad  Mosellae 
allabentis  litus  excitata  porta  erat  quae 
illustri  specie  artis,  et  magnificentia  operis, 
caeteras  longe  superabat ; ut  ab  ipsa  struc- 
turae  elegantia,  porta  Inclyta  diceretur. 
Haec  porta  aureis  siderum  figuris  exornata, 
et  nocturno  succensa  ac  late  coruscans 
lumine,  navigantibus  phari  loco  proposita 
ipsum  quoque  urbis  portum  grata  luce 
collustrabat.” 

' Kenner,  op.  cit.,  p.  153,  refers  to  the  large 
framed  medallions  of  Constantins  II  and 
Valens  as  having  been  probably  gifts  of  these 
emperors  to  barbarian  chieftains  whose  ‘Ger- 
manic’ goldsmiths’  art  is  recognizable  in  the 
frames.  Their  find  place,  also,  he  thought, 
pointed  to  their  having  been  worn  by  princes 

NUMISMATIC  NOTES 

MEDALLIONS 

! 

103 

outside  the  Roman  Empire.  On  this  point, 
it  must  be  recalled  that  the  province  of  Dacia, 
where  the  find  occurred,  became  Roman  again 
under  Constantine  the  Great  in  328  (Maurice, 
Num.  Const.  Vol.  I,  p.  cxlvii). 

% 

AND  MONOGRAPHS 

ROMAN  GOLD  MEDALLIONS 


Pl.  I 


Medallion  of  Constantine  I 
Siscia 


ROMAN  GOLD  MEDALLIONS 


Pl.  II 


Medallion  of  Constantine  II 
Thessalonica 


ROMAN  GOLD  MEDALLIONS 


Pl.  Ill 


Medallion  of  Constantine  I 
Nicomedia 


I 


ROMAN  GOLD  MEDALLIONS 


Pl.  IV 


Medallion  of  Constantine  I 

Augusta  Trevirorum 


< ' 


ROMAN  GOLD  MEDALLIONS 


Pl.  V 


Medallion  of  Valentinian  I 
Antioch 


^‘■1-  > 


i 


PUBLICATIONS 


Ernest  Babelon.  Les  Medailles  Historiques  du 
Regne  de  Napoleon  le  Grand,  Empereur  et 
Roi.  Paris.  1912.  Folio,  lx,  430  pages 
printed  in  three  tones,  a special  border  for 
every  page.  Illustrating  two  hundred  unpub- 
lished drawings  of  Napoleonic  medals,  .... 
byChaudet  and  Lemot  for  ....  the  French 
Institute.  $20.00. 

Agnes  Baldwin.  The  Electrum  Coinage  of 
Lampsakos.  1914.  36  pages.  2 plates,  ^i.oo. 

Edward  T.  Newell.  The  Seleucid  Mint  of  An- 
tioch. 1918.  137  pages.  13'  plates.  ^^5.00. 

Edward  T.  Newell.  Tarsos  under  Alexander. 
1919.  47  pages.  8 plates.  ^2.50. 

Bauman  L.  Belden.  War  Medals  of  the  Con- 
federacy. 1915.  12  pages.  I plate.  ;^i.oo. 

Bauman  L.  Belden.  United  States  War  Medals. 
1916.  72  pages.  9 plates.  ^2.00. 


T 


Edgar  FI.  Adams  and  William  H. 
United  States  Pattern, 
tal  Pieces  ....  issued 
from  1792  up  to  the  pres 
pages.  Ulus.  Cloth, 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


Woodin. 


3 3125  00594  4117 


PUBLICATIONS 


Edward  T.  Newell.  The  Alexandrine  Coinage 
of  Sinope.  1919.  ii  pages.  2 plates. 
‘$2.50. 

Edward  T.  Newell.  Myriandros  — Alexandria 
Kat’isson.  1920.  42  pages.  2 plates. 

$3-00. 

Agnes  Baldwin.  The  Electrum  and  Silver  Coins 
of  Chios.  1915.  60  pages.  7 plates. 

$2.00. 

Albert  R.  Frey.  Dictionary  of  Numismatic 
Names.  1917.  31 1 pages.  ^5.00. 

Henry  C.  Miller  and  Hillyer  Ryder.  The  State 
Coinages  of  New  England.  (Conn.  — 
Vermont  — Mass.).  7 plates.  ;?53.oo. 

Moritz  Wormser.  Coins  and  Medals  of  Tran- 
sylvania. 9 plates.  $2>oo. 

Theodore  Spicer-Simson.  Portrait  Reliefs, 
Medals  and  Coins  in  their  Relation  to  Life 
and  Art.  $1.^0. 

Robert  W.  McLachlan.  The  Copper  Tokens 
of  Upper  Canada.  4 plates.  $3.50. 

Eugene  G.  Courteau.  The  Wellington  Tokens 
relating  to  Canada.  2 plates.  $2.00. 


